Hi All, It is unclear what the relationship is between the current physical size of the human brain and the remainder of the body. I belive that it has been determined that we could get along with a much smaller physical size, e.g., the ancestors did. What is the extra capability used for?
My presumption is that it was used to learn and develop the means of communicating, logical thought and organizations (beneficial and adverse). Is this extra capacity needed? Probably not since the universe seems to be developing on its own without our help. What good is it? Survival of the species has been advanced as an answer. On the adverse side it has been used on many ocassions to fool Practitioners and investors, in short, whatever purpose one puts together. Pyramid schemes (hierarchical by design) spring to mind. 'The mind knows about itself and its physical carrier, the brain. But the functioning of the brain has nothing to do with the abstract concepts build within it.' Not sure this is an established fact. I can recall cases where the brain, especially the criminal brain, does understand the functioning of the brain and the body and can manipulate the external person to achieve specific goals. Some people are rather good at this! Seems like the Criminal Justice Systems has to deal with 'Patients' that successful fool Practitioners in order to commit crimes. The 'functioning of the brain', from my recollection, is not sufficiently certain and definite to permits accurate and precise classifications of proper and improper functions. One thing is certain, the brain controls internal and external functions! My belief is that 'abstract concepts' developed within the brain can control it in whole or in part. Presuming that hierarchical constructs related to the 'abstract concepts' developed within the brain can be modeled is a bit too far to leap! Regards! -Thomas Clark Karsten Hilbert wrote: >>physical brain == carrier of knowledge == neurons, synapses etc. == real world >> >> >But they are not interconnected in a hierarchy only, to the >best of my knowledge. > > > >>The mind knows about itself and its physical carrier, the brain. But the >>functioning of the brain has nothing to do with the abstract concepts >>build within it. >> >> >I tend to think that Nature had no abstract concepts >"in mind" when "building" the brain. Rather abstract concepts >are what we with our limited ability to comprehend use to >reduce complex things to something we *can* understand, no ? >Eg. the brain simply IS but we use abstract concepts to >*describe* what we understand of it. Unless you want to reduce >those abstract concepts to Laws of Nature - which have nothing >much to do with why or whether the brain is internally connected >hierarchially or web-like. > >Karsten > > - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
