Re: [life] body and mind

["John Kineman" <***>]

On the Rosen list we are having the same discussion. So I"m going to
cross post and see what happens. If someone objects to the
cross-posting, please say so and we should stop.

Simply, what I proposed as my working concept of mind or general
awareness/consciousness and all that ill-defined but, I believe,
necessary stuff, is to provisionally pin it to Rosen's idea of
functional or formal entailment, as represented in the modeling relation.

This does not differentiate between thoughts and the thinker, but
recognizes that combined domain as being involved in nature (the
ontological view). By representing it in the modeling relation, he gives
us a way to work with it. I think this method of constructing a picture
of reality might reveal a way to distinguish thoughts and thinker as
well, but that is uncertain. It may not be as important as starting with
recognition of formal/functional entailment.

John Kineman

Georg Ivanovas wrote:

> Linda wrote:
>
>> you might like to look at my paper on the CD we got from the
>> conference. As per Maturana and Varela, I argue that mind exists in the
>> relationship between parts. So, amoeba do have a mind, so too does the
>> liver!!
>
>
> Hi Linda,
>
> I took a short look at your paper. But I have to confess that 20 pages
> were just too much to study for me at the moment. I even have not read
> Pavel's paper, which is very interesting. But it has about the same
> size. Why are papers not shorter!?
>
> May be we can discuss the points in a more open form.
>
> As to Maturana, I am not too familiar with his works. Varela, however,
> made a lot of changes in his concepts. As I read him, he had a very
> Buddhist concept of mind, that can be defined:  "mind is, what is able
> to think of something else". I do not want to look at the implications
> of this definition now.
>
> As *mind* is no defined term, you are free to define it in your way.
> So as I understand (from my superficial look), it is for you the
> living principle as such.
>
> In my investigation of the meanings of mind I found 4 groups:
>
> 1. Explanatory principle: Mind does not mean anything. It is just an
> empty word.
> 2. Extra human principle: Something as a soul, a part of god or such,
> coming from outside imposed or embodied in a living being.
> 3. Inner representation: Thinking and feeling
> 4. Observed behaviour.
>
> So I would subsume your approach under 2.
>
> What is the difference between your *mind* and life? Between *mind*
> and organization?
>
> Best wishes
>