Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ames-lm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!ames-lm!barry
From: barry@ames-lm.UUCP (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci,net.misc
Subject: Re: Mind and Brain
Message-ID: <380@ames-lm.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Jul-84 16:32:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: ames-lm.380
Posted: Mon Jul  2 16:32:19 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 00:11:27 EDT
References: <769@pyuxn.UUCP>, <838@shark.UUCP>, <1396@proper.UUCP>
Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA
Lines: 33
Keywords: behaviorism,brain,mind,Plato,dead greeks

[<+>]
	It's rather difficult to argue about something like "mind" without
having first established a definition of same. I suspect that at least
some of those who object to the notion of mind are really objecting to
mystical implications that they see in the concept, but I don't see that
there is anything mystical in the notion of mind if it's properly defined.
Perhaps the problem arises from the habit of considering that which is
non-physical less 'real' than the physical, but this simple assumption
doesn't work for "mind".
	Consider: we are unable to doubt our own existence, for we experience
ourselves directly; yet, unless we make mystical assumptions about "soul",
we must conclude that our existence is temporary and contingent. This
would seem to demonstrate that we are not physical, for the physical
(matter, energy) is never either created or destroyed, but only changes
forms.
	So, if we adopt a minimal definition of "mind" as the experiencing
of our own existence, is any further argument necessary? Does anyone
doubt that we, indeed, have the experience of existence? It may not seem
a useful concept scientifically, since it is not reducible into component
parts, but we can hardly doubt the reality of that to which it refers.
	It can be amusing to note the zeal with which some social
scientists (e.g., radical behaviorists) attempt to banish all subjective
elements from their disciplines, and to emulate the supposed objectivity
of the physical sciences. They seem to take 19th century ideas of classical
physics as their ideal, and fail to notice that physics, itself, has
given up this sort of pure objectivity as an inadequate model of reality.
	Anyone seen Schroedinger's cat around here? :-)

                                                Kenn Barry
                                                NASA-Ames Research Center
                                                Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Electric Avenue:              {dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames-lm!barry