[MD] extricating MOQ from SOM

[Laird Bedore]

Hi Jim,

Treating the brain and its cognitive processes (mind) is an interesting idea. I think there are some DQ-related ramifications (or clarifications) which arise from this. To stay consistent with the dialogue I'll try to stick with using the term reality instead of Quality or DQ when appropriate.

When looking at the mind as a sensory organ it's very easy to see the relationship between DQ and mind - capable of sensation, perception, awareness of reality, dynamic quality is an imminent, if not primary, "food" for the mind. I think you're suggesting that describing mind as not-a-sensory-organ doesn't leave much room for interaction between reality (DQ) and intellectual patterns. The "processor and reconstructor" mind seems like it is more done-upon by reality unwittingly (implying a preconceptual subject-object split) rather than interacting with reality to yield a just-in-time SO awareness. Am I reading you correctly in this regard?

Without the "sense" of mind, it sounds like a big ole mish-mash of static patterns working in a rather mechanistic way. That concept of mind doesn't seem to fit with our experiences of reality, so I think I see the "sensory organ" concept as a better answer.

-Laird

[Jim]

> What I mean by saying 'you are not your mind' is this:  Your mind is a sensory organ capable of 
> perceiving  reality like your other five senses. ... 
>
> You know, I had this figured out in the car on the way home today but now I thought through what 
> I was going to type and it doesn't make sense.  I think I had a revelation.  I was going to say that 
> if you are not your thoughts then you are not your mind by deductive reasoning, or something to 
> that effect.  But now I realize that all your thoughts and emotions are intellectual creations based 
> on the SO perception of reality.  This implies that the brain is not a sensory organ (I would like to 
> believe it is) but more simply, a processor and reconstructor of sensory data.  This would further 
> imply that the person that I refer to as 'me' is the accumulation of all the qualities that go into who 
> I am, physical, intellectual, memories, thoughts, experiences, all wrapped up into one but no more.
>
> I'm not clear on that last point, I'll have to stew on it for a while.
>
>
> Thanks for the dialogue, I'd like to hear what you think.
> Take care,
>
> Jim Engele
>