How Many Heads Do You Have?

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

I'm finding this a bit confusing. It must be my dumb as a rock day? It's all one mind just different apects of it.

Rickie The Grey wrote: I'm finding this a bit confusing. It must be my dumb as a rock day? It's all one mind just different apects of it.

Well, what is 'mind'?

If you quiet your mind, to observe your mind, and you do observe it...Wouldnt that make two minds?

Your 'presence', and observation of your thoughts is the two...

Although theoretically, I can see the infinity of it, I dont necessarily agree, but possibly because I can observe myself, but, I am not sure I can observe myself observing myself... (three minds).. It just is a point Im not at yet quite possibly...

Sometimes I wonder about having three heads - the two that "argue" and the one that watches.

Yeah - I just said that on a public forum. I've lost my mind haha
You know? Like the angel and devil on the shoulder and the confused (or amused) person in between.

But then Jestor said his part and if I think about it that way... two is right.

Consciousness studies can be fascinating and very (or almost) entertaining.

At least we're not all on about "zombies".

:S

Jestor wrote:

Rickie The Grey wrote: I'm finding this a bit confusing. It must be my dumb as a rock day? It's all one mind just different apects of it.

Well, what is 'mind'?

If you quiet your mind, to observe your mind, and you do observe it...Wouldnt that make two minds?


I think that's just a clearer mind


Your 'presence', and observation of your thoughts is the two...

Is looking at my reflection the same as me being two people?

Although theoretically, I can see the infinity of it, I dont necessarily agree, but possibly because I can observe myself, but, I am not sure I can observe myself observing myself... (three minds).. It just is a point Im not at yet quite possibly...

and maybe it's just a greater awarenees of one mind or an expanded mind?

Yes and no...

Would you agree that your mind is not really you?

HAHAHA nice find!!

Size matters not, look at Einstein - he had a smallish brain. The subjective head is not a real head, its a model of a head. Our real head's size would have to be proportional to the dimensions of measurement which our subjective head uses, to afford function to our body in modelling reality but a model of a head is not a head, and a model of a head does not undertake the functions of a head in hosting a mind. I think the author drank too much coffee!!

Seemingly there is one brain in the physical body, and one primary subjective universe (which includes our subjective self/body). I'd venture our awareness is the model itself.

BUT I'd also suggest that we can create new alternate subjective universes through visualization (eg dreams). It's just they will not be incorporated so completely with our brain's function to exist in such high fidelity as our subjective interpretation of the objective universe, which is reinforced every fraction of a second by our sensory systems.

Model's are simplified representations. They discard the detail and so can exist as much smaller representations of whatever fundamental language is used to process the model. I'd venture to say that our awareness of the model is the only mind - we are the model.

Which begs the question what is the model, well we have sensory systems which provide important information that must be accurate to some extent because we can cross reference it to the other sensors/senses, eg: I can see my face looks like it feels when I touch my face. Importantly the author made the point that the senses only provide an amount of information which we use to create the subjective universe. It doesn't answer the question though.

They are learning more and more how the brain works, and it seems to be computational. The brain even starts processing vision in the back of the eyeball before sending it to the visual cortex! Individual neuron's seem designed to detect specific parameters, and its through sheer brute force allowed by the complexity of the nervous system that the result is our state of mind (seemingly). Note I said 'state' of mind. This state of mind represents the awareness of our body to it's environment and to itself.

Everything beyond that is unknown. Try to describe colors without using other colors as a point of reference; the subjective universe is person, and therefore personal.

How we each decide to interpret the experience of awareness probably depends mostly on survival at its most foundation level. So much so that the subconscious reserves the right to take away conscious control when it perceives sufficient threat, but it is still our mind at work - just another level of it's processing which seems to work quicker without the burden of sentience. Above that we juggle activities to achieve a measure of connection to our self's, through health. Finally if we have enough resources we experiment with elevated states of health called pleasure.

It's why I got into modelling and simulation with computers for such things as virtual environments. They are models just like our own awareness. It's how we choose to interact with the model of reality, and how we understand the fidelity or level of accuracy of the model that determines our awareness of it, depending on the tools available to interact with it.

Jestor wrote: Yes and no...

Would you agree that your mind is not really you?

Yes and no. Couldn't help starting like that. My (our) mind(s) is all me (us) and all everything else. One mind. We are all connected. We just don't know until we know. For some that may never happen. Acknowledging our ignorance is liberating and mind expanding. For some they live it from birth. The mind is a dangerious thing. If we master our minds we master all.

There is and can be a lot of confusion in what has been stated. There is a conscience mind and the subconscious mind. However, there are theories that stated differently. We have our own mind, and there are those alien thoughts that come at us. Those thoughts when one is attempting to be silent in the mind like in meditation, and thoughts keep crashing against us like waves against a shore. We have a mind of our own, and then there is the rational mind that is not ours that always bombards us in ways that do not make sense. That is why that we should follow our ‘gut instincts.’ Sometimes it can be right, and other times it can be off. Depending on one’s point of view.

MurMur wrote: There is and can be a lot of confusion in what has been stated. .

Nah, just a lot of opinion and theory. It's intriging to think about though.

Rickie The Grey wrote:

Jestor wrote: Yes and no...

Would you agree that your mind is not really you?

Yes and no. Couldn't help starting like that. My (our) mind(s) is all me (us) and all everything else. One mind. We are all connected. We just don't know until we know. For some that may never happen. Acknowledging our ignorance is liberating and mind expanding. For some they live it from birth. The mind is a dangerious thing. If we master our minds we master all.

lol, right...

If we are all one mind, why do we not think like it? Why are our thoughts and such not in better sync?

Because we have "monkey mind', 'ego' or whatever....

So, if we step out one level, to observe our thoughts, then we are of two minds...

If we can step out another level, which I can almost see, we can observe mind2 watching mind1, with mind3...

Im working on getting mind3 to watch mind2... Because sometimes, mind2 should bepaying better attention to mind1...

lol...

This is an interesting one, as it can be different for each person.


I have my commonly accepted body and head, which exists in the commonly accepted universe that we all perceive. This body1 is what others base their models of me off of.

I must also have my own model of this body1, which is called body2, inside body1.

Now I have a mind1 inside of body1, and in order to perceive that mind1 I have to perceive mind1 which creates a model, which is mind2.


Now can we really call mind2 a mind? It doesn't actually do any thinking, it's a mere model.


Now onto how we observe our thoughts.

I think I'm seeing this differently.

I have mind1, it does all the actual thinking, processing, smelling, seeing, everything.

When I want to "sit back and observe my thoughts" I don't leave mind1 and view it from mindB, I merely view the thought process of mind1, from within another part of mind1.


When I go on a spiritual journey, again, I'm not leaving mind1 behind, and viewing everything from mindB, mindB doesn't exist for me, I merely continue using mind1, outside of brain1.

If we are all one mind, why do we not think like it? Why are our thoughts and such not in better sync?

It's a big diverse mind with no limitations where anything and everything is possiblebut I do believe we have more in common than different

Because we have "monkey mind', 'ego' or whatever....

Monkey mind is a challange

So, if we step out one level, to observe our thoughts, then we are of two minds...

If we can step out another level, which I can almost see, we can observe mind2 watching mind1, with mind3...

different levels same mind

Im working on getting mind3 to watch mind2... Because sometimes, mind2 should bepaying better attention to mind1...

lol...[/color][/quote]

Can be confusing isn't it. That's part of the challange and joy of the mind. Exploring the unlimited with the limited

Soya wrote: Now can we really call mind2 a mind? It doesn't actually do any thinking, it's a mere model.

It observes....

Which is how we should being mind1 as well, right?

Not thinking, not judging, just observing...

Rickie wrote:

If we can step out another level, which I can almost see, we can observe mind2 watching mind1, with mind3...

different levels same mind

Yes, ok, then lets say it like this...

level-1, being watched by level-2... And I really need to have level-3 pay more attention level-2...

lol....

Rickie wrote: Can be confusing isn't it. That's part of the challange and joy of the mind. Exploring the unlimited with the limited

I dont find it too confusing...

I dont find it too confusing...

You're certain?

Hay how about this one modified from Shrek...The mind is like an onion it has layers.

Rickie The Grey wrote: I dont find it too confusing...

You're certain?

Uh, yes? Maybe? No?

:lol:

Hay how about this one modified from Shrek...The mind is like an onion it has layers.

Hmmm, momma said, I was a bloomin' idiot... Is that what she meant I wonder?

Hay how about this one modified from Shrek...The mind is like an onion it has layers.

Ha! I do so love simplistic views of complicated theories.

Jestor wrote:

Soya wrote: Now can we really call mind2 a mind? It doesn't actually do any thinking, it's a mere model.

It observes....

Which is how we should being mind1 as well, right?

Not thinking, not judging, just observing...

Does it really observe? If I make a robot, or more properly an android, and put a brain in it, but only a model of a brain, all the computer chips and motors being in the central cavity, does this brain observe?

The model of me, inside my head, might move and speak, but only as I see myself doing. The brain or mind in that model doesn't actually do anything.

You may perceive your brain or mind translating all those signals, from outside of your mind, but when I perceive my mind working, my brain translating signals from my eyes, translating signals from my brain to my mouth, I do it from my thought processing center, inside the same mind.



Your description of how you see your brain, are like looking into a glass box, holding a working model of the room you're in.

I have that same room, that same glass box, but all it is is a glass box.

If i want to see my thoughts I don't look into the box at my computer, I turn away from the box and look at my computer.

If I want to see my vision, I look at my tv, not into the glass box at the miniatures of the room.

soya wrote:

Jestor wrote:

Soya wrote: Now can we really call mind2 a mind? It doesn't actually do any thinking, it's a mere model.

It observes....

Which is how we should being mind1 as well, right?

Not thinking, not judging, just observing...

Does it really observe? If I make a robot, or more properly an android, and put a brain in it, but only a model of a brain, all the computer chips and motors being in the central cavity, does this brain observe?

If I put the wings of a bird on a elephant, can it fly?

Did you build the robot to observe? The 'roomba' robot observes, however elementary, its environment so as to be able to vacuum a room...

Or would you make one out of a chunk of clay that does not even have the promise of doing any thinking?

The model of me, inside my head, might move and speak, but only as I see myself doing. The brain or mind in that model doesn't actually do anything.

You may perceive your brain or mind translating all those signals, from outside of your mind, but when I perceive my mind working, my brain translating signals from my eyes, translating signals from my brain to my mouth, I do it from my thought processing center, inside the same mind.

Sure, someone else said 'levels', so run with that...

Your description of how you see your brain, are like looking into a glass box, holding a working model of the room you're in.

I have that same room, that same glass box, but all it is is a glass box.

If i want to see my thoughts I don't look into the box at my computer, I turn away from the box and look at my computer.

If I want to see my vision, I look at my tv, not into the glass box at the miniatures of the room.

Perhaps I am not being clear enough...

Imagine you are watching yourself on tv... You dont really know what the actor is going to do, but you watch it...

Its like that...

Now, look at it like a video game...

You control the guy a bit... You make him pickup a stick,however, you didnt make him crouch down, extend his hand, grasp the stick, and straighten back up...

All you did, via the controller, was say, 'grab the stick'...

Be the controller...