Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci,net.misc
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain
Message-ID: <508@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 30-Jun-84 01:46:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.508
Posted: Sat Jun 30 01:46:38 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Jul-84 00:40:28 EDT
References: <1396@proper.UUCP>, <856@shark.UUCP>, <1413@proper.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 24

Any attempt to explain to a fellow what is meant by "mind" necessarily
assumes that he has one.  This is not a triviality, but an example of
a general situation called the "stolen concept" by Nathaniel Branden
many years ago.  A concept is stolen if it is used in an attempt to
discredit it, especially if its use cannot be avoided in any such
attempt.  This is a good indication that the concept is of something
truly fundamental.

To the fellow who defies anyone to demonstrate what is meant by "mind":
Your mind is what you used in evaluating the above paragraph when you
read it.  Certain hardware such as your eyes and brain were definitely
involved (blind people may have used some sense other than vision), but
mind is the result of functioning of a brain, not the brain itself.
Processes can have a reality without being classed the same as concrete
existents.

This whole subject area belongs to the branch of philosophy known as
Epistemology, the study of what knowledge consists of and how it is
acquired.  Of course, philosophers are generally held in (well-deserved)
disdain, since they seem to have produced more confusion about these
things than real understanding.  The best discussion of
conceptualization that I have seen is Ayn Rand's "Introduction to
Objectivist Epistemology" (available from Palo Alto Book Service, and
perhaps reprinted elsewhere, I don't recall).