• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe

Mind vs. Brain

  • Thread starter Thread starter independentValue
  • Start date Start date
I

independentValue

Guest
I would like to start a definition thread. How would you personally define mind vs. brain? Id like to see how the definitions change based on being circulated around different forums, which is why this is rather open-ended.

Thanks
 
Brain= the organ inside your head.
Mind= What does all the thinking inside that organ.

just my .02
-HOOD
Click to expand...

Would agree with this however I would say that all the thinking inside that organ isn't necessarily in that organ, but non-local. The organ only receives the thoughts. Like a radio tuner, tuning into intelligence. The chemicals in the brain tweak that receiving, but do not generate it.
 
^Who or what is transmitting these signals we are picking up? Or are they as inherent as electricity in our universe?
 
I resonate with what has been said already, the brain being the organ and the mind something non-local that interfaces with the organ. Personally I feel this takes places involving some kind of 'electrical' interaction (note: electrical theory being presently incomplete).
 
In my opinion the brain translates input and output.

''I smell a rosel''

I = me, the spirit, the mind, the soul

smell = the brains translation for what the soul cant read without a brain, being able to be consious.

a rose = what needs to be translated.

Like i am american, the world is french, in order to understand life's language i use my brain to translate it for me.

I know what i feel.

I = me, spirit, mind, soul
know = the translation of my brain
what i feel = whats translated for me


Im a true believer of the fact that we create our brain, and not the other way around.
Its not like we are here because of the universe, the universe is here because of us.
When there is nothing that makes us know and understand, there is nothing, because we have a tool to know and understand, we create everything.
knowing and understanding is creating, without that there is no creation.

A painting (me, spirit, soul) is here (brain) because it was painted (translated), its not like the painting was allready here before it got painted..

If im not here, there is no brain, there is no brain without me. I activate my brain and put it in purpose, if i was here because of my brain, i wouldnt be able to manipulate my brain (say no to instinct, trust intuition), it would manipulate me.

When i imagine, i create, i imagine through my brain, there i no imagination without me, if my brain would imagine for me, it would be me, and that i dont believe.
 
Last edited:
Brain- A circuitof electrical impulses and neurotransmitters

Mind- What humans identify themselves with. ( Like a Mr Tolle says "Toknow yourself as the Being underneath the thinker, the stillness underneath themental noise, the love and joy underneath the pain, is freedom, salvation,enlightenment)
 
^Ah, whoops, I see your point.

Ok, but my question about what the mind actually does then, I think you missed.

If thought is reduced to the electrical activity of the brain, doesn't that make your definitions of each, essentially synonymous?
 
HypGnosis said:
^Ah, whoops, I see your point.

Ok, but my question about what the mind actually does then, I think you missed.

If thought is reduced to the electrical activity of the brain, doesn't that make your definitions of each, essentially synonymous?
Click to expand...

No, not really. Thoughts can be translated because they are electrical impulses, but that does not mean that the Brain is the soul source of thought; rather just the entity that exerts them physically. We know "how", but not "why". I'm not saying that I am in anyway correct, but I see the brain as the middle man between thought and emotion. It allows for the mind to be exerted physically, but that does not necessarily mean that the mind does not exist without the brain.

One example of this is love. Using MRI's and the empirical method, we have narrowed down several biological affairs that are indicative of love, so if we did an MRI on someone who was staring at a picture of another person, we might be able to determine whether the person being tested - is in love, or not in love, with the person in the picture. But we don't know whether those indications are causes, responses, or segments of love. So, to say that love only exists physically - would be reducing love to the evidence we can observe today.

Edit: My bad, once again, I missed your point. Haha. My apologies. If thought is seen as nothing more than electrical impulses produces by the brain, then yes, thought is nothing more than physical. And if the mind is made up of nothing more than thought, then yes, the mind is physical. But I do not see thought as the nothing more than electrical impulse, nor the mind as nothing more than thought.

I guess it boils down to a matter of beliefs. Because I believe that consciousness exists after death, and therefore, do not believe that it only exists in a physical form.

But, speaking in terms of reason; you are correct. I'm sorry it took me so long to get that...haha. I'm a bit slow sometimes....
 
Last edited:
There's a difference between the brain, the mind, and the observer.

The brain provides the interface. Mind provides the analytical ego that's required to navigate materialism. The observer watches mind and everything else. You could also call the observer "present awareness". No matter what's happening, it remains the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top