Evgnii,. The question is that the mind is not the brain in the same way
that Microsoft Word running in a computer ins not the computer. The
intuitive notion of location of our self, our mind behind de eyes and thus
inside the skull is not a mere derivation of the fact that the brain is
located there, but it is different. It is a evolutionary adaptation, and a
adaptation is a design, that is for good reasons our intuition in location
of our self is in the head. But the fact that is is an adaptation and not
something derived from the position of the brain is that the mind can be
cheated to be located in a separated place. Wiht a camera and a monitor and
glasses of virtual realtiy it is possible to cheat ourseves, and think that
we are behind our bodies.
We think thar our self is in the head because in this way we control better
ourselves and we can react to inmediate dangers better.( That is why
fighter pilots, that need heavy feedback and agile movements fly with
their machines, while the spy and air to ground missions can be managed
but the mind is not in the phisical space . Rather that that, in the
kantian sense, space , the intuitive space, the euclidean space, seems to
be the way the mind organize the objects of his perception. This space may
be isomorphic with the space of the phisical world, but is not the same.
Think for example of a program which simulate a 3D space with objects
which receive feedback from the physical space trough a camera. Both spaces
are siimlar, but the simulated space do not "use" phisical space.
so when a person look at his hand, he is perceiving his hand, and by
definition the hand he sees is in his mind. This hand is not in the
phisical space, it is in the mental space. it is not in the phisical world.
it is in the mental world. But there is a phisical hand. Is natural
selection the designer that assures that his phisical hand is doing what is
mental hand his doing, Except if it is an schizofrenic, is using
allucinatory drugs or has some serious deficiency. It natural selection the
designer that discard "bad" mental perceptions of reality.
However, this does say nothing about the nature of the phisical world. The
fact taht two persons see the same does not assure that the phisical world
is that way. Both can be in a Matix world, where his sensory nervous
terminations are conected to a computer simulation. And still both perceive
space and objects. But this arangement can not evolve as a result of any
2012/7/31 Evgenii Rudnyi <use...@rudnyi.ru>
> Thank you for your answers. I will make one comment now. I plan to read
> Schneider on molecular machines (thanks for the link) and then I may make
> more comments.
> On 31.07.2012 11:08 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
> Evgenii, great questions
>> 2012/7/30 Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru>
>> On 30.07.2012 11:19 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
> The activity of the brain is the mind and the mind is a separate
>>>> world that includes all that can be perceived. What is outside of the
>>>> mind may just plain mathematics. What we call phisical world is in
>>>> reality set of phenomenons perceived by the mind. Observations happen
>>>> in the mind. We can repeat and verify experiments because we live in
>>>> the same mathematical reality outside of the mind, and because our
>>>> minds have similar architecture and experience, so we have the same
>>>> language, interests, experimental machines, procedures, so, as Eric
>>>> Voegelin said, we live in a shared social mind.
>>> I am not sure if I understand. How do you connect these two assumptions:
>>> "What we call phisical world is in reality set of phenomenons perceived
>>> the mind."
>>> "because we live in the same mathematical reality outside of the mind"
>>> Do you mean that the world outside of the mind is congruent with the
>>> perceived world by the mind?
>>> Yes. This is not magical, but a product of natural selection. Our mental
>> world is made to support life, and life is the art of maintaining and
>> reproducing our bodies, that live outside of the mind. A computer can
>> simulate anythnig we want, but our brains are dedicated computers devoted
>> full time to carefully examine the external reality that appear to our
>> perception as phenomenons or else, we would not survive. Some irrealities
>> can be accepted when they are in a trade-off with other more valuable
>> knowledge, or the perception is too expensive. We do not see individual
>> dangerous bacterias for example, but we avoid them by smell and taste and
>> some visual clues, well before we noticed its existence.
>> So when we have in front of our eyes an arrangement of atoms that has
>> direct or indirect meaning for our purposes, we identifty and classify it
>> according with his "use": men, women, disgusting, pleasing, horses,
>> experiments, countries..but also atoms, electrons and so on. And we
>> acordingly. None of these things exist outside of the mind, but what we
>> sure of is that outside there is something that make all of us perceive
>> same things and it respond with certain laws that we have discovered that
>> are mathematical. So both are congruent because the mind evolved to be
>> congruent, but not only congruent, but congruent in certain defined ways.
>> There is a branch called evolutionary epistemology that study the
>> epistemological consequences of the evolved nature of our mind.
> The world in the brain that is congruent with the world outside of the
> brain brings us a paradox, as described by Max Velmans:
> “Lehar (2003), however, points out that if the phenomenal world is inside
> the brain, the real skull must be outside the phenomenal world (the former
> and the latter are logically equivalent). Let me be clear: if one accepts
> a) The phenomenal world appears to have spatial extension to the perceived
> horizon and dome of the sky.
> b) The phenomenal world is really inside the brain.
> It follows that
> c) The real skull (as opposed to the phenomenal skull) is beyond the
> perceived horizon and dome of the sky.“
> Some problem here is that science that we know has started with
> observations and we make these observations in the three dimensional world
> that we observe outside of our body/brain. Now if we say that actually what
> we consciously observe is in the brain, then we should reconsider as well
> what observation is.
> Hence my interest to skeptic arguments. For example, see famous ‘Proof of
> an External World’ by Moore
> "How? By holding up my two hands, and saying, as I make a certain gesture
> with the right hand, ‘Here is one hand’, and adding, as I make a certain
> gesture with the left, ‘and here is another’ (‘Proof of an External World’
> "I knew that there was one hand in the place indicated by combining a
> certain gesture with my first utterance of ‘here’ and that there was
> another in the different place indicated by combining a certain gesture
> with my second utterance of ‘here’. How absurd it would be to suggest that
> I did not know it, but only believed it, and that perhaps it was not the
> case! You might as well suggest that I do not know that I am now standing
> up and talking — that perhaps after all I'm not, and that it's not quite
> certain that I am! (‘Proof of an External World’ 166)"
> With the picture as described by you, this does not work any more.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com <everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at