From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!generic.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!aunro!ukma!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!shamash!map Tue Nov 19 11:08:44 EST 1991
Article 1166 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!generic.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!aunro!ukma!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!timbuk.cray.com!shamash!map
>From: map@u02.svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: MIND, BRAIN, CONCIOUSNESS
Message-ID: <37577@shamash.cdc.com>
Date: 30 Oct 91 20:16:22 GMT
References: <1991Oct29.214816.23349@timessqr.gc.cuny.edu>
Sender: usenet@shamash.cdc.com
Reply-To: map@svl.cdc.com
Organization: Control Data Corporation, Silicon Valley Operations
Lines: 45

In <1991Oct29.214816.23349@timessqr.gc.cuny.edu> las@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu writes:

>Having been trained as a mathematician I feel very inclined
>to ask for a defenition of what is meant by the following terms:

>a) mind
>b) brain
>c) conciousness.

>I once asked a Zen master this question. First he laughed at me, and
>then he said:

>"Brain happens to conciousness. Mind happens to brain after brain is
>happening to conciousness". I smiled and thanked him. you can 
>imagine how I felt.  Does this make sense to any of you? I would 
>appreciate an  honest reply. I know that Zen masters are notorious
>for not making sense.

It makes sense, but only because it's wrong.  Philosophers call this
the "primacy of consciousness" viewpoint, i.e., the view that 
consciousness precedes existence, and thus is the primary "stuff."

This Zen master said that "brain happens to consciousness," which
implies that consciousness came first, then the brain.  The proper
view is that both mind and consciousness arise from the nature of
the brain (and of the rest of the nervous system).

The concept of consciousness as such can't be defined (except
ostensively), because it is a self-evident, irreducible fact that is 
implicit in all knowledge, including definitions. [And by "irreducible" 
I don't mean that no explanation of the physical conditions of 
consciousness is possible].  Consciousness is one of the facts that is 
at the base of all knowledge, from which all knowledge arises.  To define 
a concept is to reduce it to its antecedent concepts, and nothing is 
antecedent to something at the base of all knowledge, as is consciousness.   

Depending on the context, "mind" might be a synonym for consciousness,
it might refer to a particular aspect of consciousness (e.g., thought
vs. emotion), or it might refer to a type of consciousness (e.g., 
conceptual vs. perceptual).

--
Mark A. Peters                              ****** ======================
Control Data Corporation                    ****** == "What a save!!!" ==
Internet: map@svl.cdc.com                   ****** == "What an idea!!" ==


