The Mind Is A Secondary Organ

@Dustin phil,

Dustin wrote:

Aren't the characteristics of autism and mercury poisoning nearly identical?

Not even remotely. Jeez, I mean look up acrodynia, which is one of the classic mercury toxicity syndromes.

Plus, remember that autism is a group of several diseases (the autistic spectrum disorders) that includes autism, Asperger syndrome, savants, and pervasive developmental delay. And to be sure, NONE of them resembles any of the described mercury toxicity syndromes.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Not even remotely. Jeez, I mean look up acrodynia, which is one of the classic mercury toxicity syndromes.

Plus, remember that autism is a group of several diseases (the autistic spectrum disorders) that includes autism, Asperger syndrome, savants, and pervasive developmental delay. And to be sure, NONE of them resembles any of the described mercury toxicity syndromes.

So, is the chart below incorrect?

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2853/autismvaccineub9.jpg

@boagie,

Yes. Patently so. In fact both columns are grossly incorrect. Head to your local medical school's library, pick up a Toxicology textbook and open to the mercury poisoning chapter, and pick up a Pediatric Development textbook and open to the autistic spectrum disorders chapter. They are nothing alike.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Yes. Patently so. In fact both columns are grossly incorrect. Head to your local medical school's library, pick up a Toxicology textbook and open to the mercury poisoning chapter, and pick up a Pediatric Development textbook and open to the autistic spectrum disorders chapter. They are nothing alike.

Thanks for the info. Since this was a bit off-topic, I started a new thread, but somehow it mysteriously disappeared.

@boagie,

Would it be possible that the nucleus of an atom has a perceptive decision-making imagination similar to our imaginative minds. If so, the brain as a simple organ would contain atoms which have an imaginative quality, therefore the brain would be as imaginative and spiritually inspired as the mind.

@boagie,

It's possible, but how would you ever show that? There are microscopes powerful enough to see atoms, and manipulate them to a small degree (at least i saw so on discover channel once Razz

), so we know they exist, assuming Descarte was wrong in his dualist concept. heheh But how could we possibly show, or demonstrate that an atom has any kind of consciousness. And if it did, wouldnt that then pose an identity problem? Are we actually conscious or is it merely the atoms....

@boagie,

I heard a theory, perhaps in a dream, that water has a memory of some description, so it takes on the properties of particles mixed with it into a solution, yet when the water is dilluted significantly or the particles removed, the water has a memory of the the composition of the particles - it's a theory that tried to prove that homeopathy worked I think. Anyway, my point is that perhaps the H2O nuclei remember the communications of the nuclei of the foreign particles, thus although protons and neutrons aren't exchanged, the water retains or remebers properties of the foreign particles.

I think the theory that water could have a memory was discredited by the science community (at least it says so on Wikipedia), so perhaps this idea is as wacky as it sounds...

@boagie,

MMMMM I'm kinda lost in there. Water is a molecule, so its made up of more than 1 atom, and doesnt have a singular nucleus, and second what kind of particles are you taking about? Cause if you add salt to water, NaCl + H2O, the water molecules will disassociate the salt into Na and Cl.... Excuse me if im getting anything wrong in this, i only have one first year biology course behind me, and its been a while. If you can somehow remove the Na and CL by removing them from the water molecules, the water will go back to its original state through hydrogen bonds. Though it might look like the water "remembers" itself, its actually only acting under an electrical charge...

@boagie,

No, what I'm saying is that there's more to a nucleus than we know, so it is possible that these nuclei form somewhat emotional bonds with other nuclei which they are then separated from somehow, yet they have some kind of memory of these other nuclei. So it could be said that the glass of water remembers the twig that was inserted and then removed due to communication between nuclei.

@boagie,

This is an excerpt from an article that ran in the scientific american. It is from an interview with Thomas Edison. I took it from a book called "the consciousness of the atom" released by Alice Bailey. It addresses what Doobah47 is questioning.
He states the following:

1 Life, like matter is indestructible
2 Our bodies are composed of Myriads of infinitesimal entities, each in itself a unit of life; just as an atom is composed of myriads of electrons.
3 The Human being acts as an assemblage rather than a unit; the body and mind express the vote or voice of the life entities.
4 The life entities build according to a plan. If a part of the life organism be mutilated, they rebuild exactly as before
5
6 The life entities live forever; so that to this extent at least the eternal life which many of us hope for is a reality.

Consciousness in some form exists on every level. Crystals grow and there is order to the natural world down to the infinitesimal. The broadest definition of consciousness is "response to contact" which the water and the Na and Cl all exhibit. They respond to eachother in the same way every time and if the compounds which have a greater afinity are put into solution the bonds of the Hydrogen and Oxygen are broken. When the interlopers are removed then the original bonds can be remade without interference.

One of the posters really took issue with the statement I made about the mind creating the brain and it is over simplified at that level but consciousness does create the organism. If you believe that life starts at conception then the consciouness of the new baby is creating its own form, including its brain. If you believe that life starts at birth than it is the consciousness of the mother that is creating the vehicle for the baby's soul (conciousness) to enhabit. Mind (to get back to the thread proper) is the first manifestation of consciousness, and in the human being it is the bridging of the lower concrete mind of the empiricist with the abstract mind of the visionary which is the goal of meditiation (mediation). That is when you have an Einstein. He claimed that he did not come by his understanding of the universe through his ability to reason.

@boagie,

Quote:

If you believe that life starts at conception then the consciousness of the new baby is creating its own form, including its brain.

You must have a very broad definition of consciousness. A Zygote has no ability to be aware of what is going on around it or even to be aware of what it is doing, it works purely mechanically (from what I understand).

I'm pretty sure that consciousness has to do with awareness.

I don't think many people would say an anencephalic baby is conscious, since it does not posses the mental faculties to be aware even though it is otherwise functioning. If you want, you can extend this to dead people also, they are not conscious, but from what I interpret from you, since they still have cells that are functioning they are conscious. [/SIZE]

@boagie,

Well as far as atoms and other things with no neurological function having consciousness, I believe that is only an illusion. The occurances of water acting the same way is due to its chemical stability, and a number of energy bonds. I don't think the water molecule consciously says to itself "lets go back to the gang and be a puddle again." That apparent "memory" of itself is due to electrical attraction.
To address the organic part, an organism appears to have the form of consiousness you stated due to genetics. DNA, that is present in every cell of an organism, codes for proteins that then "tell" the cell or other cells what to do. That's the big to do about stem cells. They are cells that haven't been told what to do by a specific protein, and thus have the potential to become anything.
When I think of inanimate objects and single celled organisms having any form of consciousness, a problem pops up. If each part of an atom is conscious, then the atom is consciou in a molecule, then a molecule in an orgenelle of a cell, then the cell, then the tissue, then organ, then system, then organism.... what's ultimately conscious? Lets say that they all contribute to one whole consciousness. What prevents a person from completely changing consciousness when they lose or gain new atoms, molecules, cells or forgein objects? Then we could suppose well that's what the brain does.... It collects the consciousness of all peices of the body, atomic and cellular, and projects it as one whole. Again, how do we know we are the same conscious being at any given moment? Atoms are coming and going faster than you or i could possibly process. This then opens up all sorts of questions regarding time, identity, reality etc....

But back to the thread. I don't want to say i have a problem with "consciousness does create the organism" because i dont take any kind offence to it, but something makes me go "no no no." hahah What it is i suppose is the consideration that perhaps a person can be born with such a mental handicap that they don't develop a consciousness. They still develop, they're still alive, but they have no consciousness and live in a vegitative state. Or, those who go into a vegitative state. They're still alive (assuming we keep them alive, but that's for another thread all together), but they might not have any consciousness. I think the body grows and functions to support the growth and use of the brain, which then produces consciousness as well as controlls the body. Without the brain, the body dies, without consciousness, the body can still live.

@boagie,

The atom is a tough one to swallow. Consciousness in minerals ia way outside of what most people consider plausable. But it still does not require a brain. Plants are conscious and there is no nervous system. Each cell in your body has a job and does it without its own nervous system as does the amoeba. Your muscle cells respond to the electrical impulses form your nerve cells. Neither cell knows what the muscle will be doing or why the arm has to move or what the purpose is etc. They are not at the level of conscious awareness that the brain is. Some of this goes on at a spinal level without the brain even when the brain is working.

That person with the mental defect is in capable of proper control of the body equipment and using it to communicate to the outside world. But on cellular and perhaps many levels the consciousness exists. I am going to get verey esoteric here and probably get in trouble for it, but here goes. The soul of that person is as perfect and conscious as yours. The dual link between the human soul (a synonim for consciousness) which is unique to humanity and its vehicle, the animal upon which it rides through life is incomplete. The life thread is keeping the body alive but the consciousness thread is impeded or the physical equipment is malformed or damaged depending on the circumstances. If you poke that person and he reacts he is consciousd to his environment even if he can't tell you so.

The cell exhibits consciousness on its level, the body on a higher level which we share with animals, and then the "I am" consciousness, the witness, the dweller within, is expressed by the mind through the brain to the body and then the world. A breakdown in communication at certain of these levels causes that mental defect or the autism possibly. The thing is that the identity is not the body. It is not what makes us human. The brain dead guy is still a perfect human conscious with a lowsey mechanism through which to experience the world and express itself through.

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

You must have a very broad definition of consciousness. A Zygote has no ability to be aware of what is going on around it or even to be aware of what it is doing, it works purely mechanically (from what I understand).

I'm pretty sure that consciousness has to do with awareness.

I don't think many people would say an anencephalic baby is conscious, since it does not posses the mental faculties to be aware even though it is otherwise functioning. If you want, you can extend this to dead people also, they are not conscious, but from what I interpret from you, since they still have cells that are functioning they are conscious.

I do have a broad definition of consciousness and I believe it is necessary. It does have to do with awareness, but not always awareness as we humans know it.

I do not have so broad af a view of human consciousness, but I don't htink it is created by the boody I believe it enhabits the body. I don't know at what point a zygote will reespond to its environment but I will bet that its immediate.

I have a friend with an anencephalic baby and although she was only expected to live a few weeks she is now three. I am sure ther are many differing manifestations and degrees of this tragic malady but in this case, she cannot think in a way we could understand is partially deaf and totally blind but drinks from the bottle when it is put in her mouth. That is a response to contact... Consciousness.

As for the newly dead person the cells in his body are still alive, but without the support of that dweller within his body cannot sustain itself, brain or no brain. It is like a car without a driver. It may be idling but no one is there to control or make use of it and it has no sourse of new fuel either so it wwill putter a bit and be done. When I eat an apple I am eating a living organism in the process of deteriorating because it has lost contact with that which was vitalizing it.

@boagie,

Quantum physics would appear to argue that at a fundamental level particles function in a random fashion, so one cannot predict for example whether a photon will pass through or be reflected by a piece of glass. It is this sense of random decision making capability on the part of the photon that leads me to believe that everything in the universe is capable of deciphering and working with presented tasks; I'm thinking that although under analysis the photons appear to act randomly there is some kind of personality to the photon. A possibly unreliable source told me that there were tests made to discover the chance of a person becoming an alcoholic, and that in some animals there was a similar percentage who would become alcoholics as with humans; is it possible that these photons appear random yet there is something in their composition and experience that causes them to become reflected, or perhaps it's just some kind of general percentage of nuclei throughout the universe who behave in a certain way in certain tasks, and like humans it could appear to be random which one becomes an alcoholic, yet in actual fact there are determining causes.

This pretty obvious stuff I know, but I felt like digressing slightly..

@Doobah47,

Quote:

I do not have so broad af a view of human consciousness, but I don't htink it is created by the boody I believe it enhabits the body.

Is it possible that in order for a computer to complete a task it has been programmed to do it must in a very linear and basic way be aware of what it is forced to do; that the process of maneouvering a NOT gate requires a basic level of consciousness, enough perception to know which gate and what to do with it. If you can understand my jist, I'm saying that in order for an exemplary rock to fall, gravitational forces must in some way be aware of the rock; or in order for an ovum to wait it must be aware that sperm might be coming.

So, if this slightly wacky idea is so, then surely an electron must be aware of it's task, that it must break it's bonds and leave it's atom to be with another atom. I think it highly likely that in order to do anything, x must be aware of its task.

@boagie,

I have a slight problem with our current definition of awareness. Something bout it just doesn't seem quite right to me. Like when we're talking about a cell being "aware;" it is dictated what to do by protiens that cause some kind of chemical reaction. Muscle cells for example have a complex system of "cocks and springs" that are triggered by the presence of certain chemicals and natural electrical pulls. At this level awareness is but an illusion. Likewise at the atomic level. It is the strength of bonds and electrical attractions that determine what parts of an atom (or the whole atom) does. For example, it is the magnetic pull of a water molecule that pulls apart NaCl (salt) apart when mixed, not a physical pulling of the water molecule due to a conscious effort.... If it were the case, what's stopping the molecule from rebelling and doing nothing... The universe's stability would be gone. Either my definition differs from what's in the previous postings, or we need to re-define it. (good stuff you guys, loads of fun)

@Rasputini,

Yes, now it gets even more fun because if we accept quantum theory we accept an esoteric truism that all is energy. I find it interesting although I've only done surface reading, that they talk of the electron in probability patterns now. They don't know if it will be an electron or a wave when they look. If you think about it everything is made of the same stuff. The electrons neutrons are all made of quarks which are sometimes not there. electrons are moving in a circle at 186000 miles per second... Thats alot of energy and only a little mass. The proportions (I don't remember where I heard this, it was a public speaker but the proportions would be like a basketball in the middle of a football stadium as the nucleus and the electron would be the size of a fly circling the stadum. Thats alot of space. These things are bouncing off of eachothere and sharing electrons. Its nuts.

Why am I bringing that up? because there is another truism that energy follows thought. The mind of all things is matter infused with intellegent activity. I don't know if intelligent activity is the best words but the problem is there are no good words. Then we end up with God and all that baggage. In Carlos Castenedas books he called it Power. Its a cosmic stu of ethers that somehow conduct mind. Spirit entoumbed in matter producing consciousness. Its the Trinity in every major religion and science can't prove it or disprove it but its the coolest thing to work on so what the heck.

@boagie,

Neat!

By the way, can someone actually define what the soul is? My take on it is that its just a spiritual word for consciousness. But when I use it like that, I'm usually told "no no no." hahaha

@Phaedrus,

Phaedrus wrote:

This is an excerpt from an article that ran in the scientific american. It is from an interview with Thomas Edison. I took it from a book called "the consciousness of the atom" released by Alice Bailey. It addresses what Doobah47 is questioning.
He states the following:

1 Life, like matter is indestructible
2 Our bodies are composed of Myriads of infinitesimal entities, each in itself a unit of life; just as an atom is composed of myriads of electrons.
3 The Human being acts as an assemblage rather than a unit; the body and mind express the vote or voice of the life entities.
4 The life entities build according to a plan. If a part of the life organism be mutilated, they rebuild exactly as before
5
6 The life entities live forever; so that to this extent at least the eternal life which many of us hope for is a reality.

Consciousness in some form exists on every level. Crystals grow and there is order to the natural world down to the infinitesimal. The broadest definition of consciousness is "response to contact" which the water and the Na and Cl all exhibit. They respond to eachother in the same way every time and if the compounds which have a greater afinity are put into solution the bonds of the Hydrogen and Oxygen are broken. When the interlopers are removed then the original bonds can be remade without interference.

One of the posters really took issue with the statement I made about the mind creating the brain and it is over simplified at that level but consciousness does create the organism. If you believe that life starts at conception then the consciouness of the new baby is creating its own form, including its brain. If you believe that life starts at birth than it is the consciousness of the mother that is creating the vehicle for the baby's soul (conciousness) to enhabit. Mind (to get back to the thread proper) is the first manifestation of consciousness, and in the human being it is the bridging of the lower concrete mind of the empiricist with the abstract mind of the visionary which is the goal of meditiation (mediation). That is when you have an Einstein. He claimed that he did not come by his understanding of the universe through his ability to reason.

Phaedrus:)

:)All of reality is relational and the relation between , is precisely effect/reaction. There is no such thing as human action, there is but reaction---------still working on this, but I think it should enlighten Hume's idea that we do not understand the force between what we call cause and effect. We antisapate effect from a given cause only through habit. I think that force is not understood because in part the resultent effect or point of focus is not do to cause, there is no such thing as cause, there are but relations between objects and conditions as effect/ reaction/response. Still feeling my way around with this, both positive and negative responses are most welcome. Very Happy

Philosophy Forum

The Mind Is A Secondary Organ

Quick Links

My Account

able2know