The Brain and The Mind: One or Separate?

Ever since the dawn of time, man has striven to understand his own mind, his thoughts, his emotions, and especially, his dreams. I share in this exploratory mission, and have in such an exploration stumbled upon a rather curious thought:

The "Brain" and the "Mind" seem to be separate entities all to themselves, while still being unquestionably linked together.

Is this the case, though? Can it be possible to be one, and also separate? Do they even intermingle at all? Is one dominant over the other? Are they equal to one another? The answers to these questions I will attempt to find as we go along. A daunting task for a mere mortal such as myself, but I shall continue, in earnest, to try.

Can two things be One and also separate?

First things first, can it be possible to be intrinsically linked together as "One" and also be separate from one another, each being "One" individually? We must find the answer, I think, in a simpler example and then see if it applies to the more complex. I would like to present the idea of a human hand to you, and myself. "One" hand is comprised of many smaller parts, each part comprised of other, even smaller parts, so on, so forth. Can we say that the "One" hand is a single unit all to itself? I think we can assert that as a truth. The one hand encompasses within it's Being all the smaller parts of the whole, and I think this as well can be asserted as a truth. The one hand has smaller parts, as we've already established, comprising it's whole. Fingers, for example - four of them, and one thumb - comprise a set of smaller pieces of the whole one hand.

Is each finger a "One", all to it's own, and able to stand alone? I would have to say yes, because a finger is still a finger if it is cut off the whole one hand and lay separate from the whole. It is recognizable as a finger, and is known to be a finger, whether it's attached to the one hand or it's not. Can the finger perform a function without the hand, though? I would have to absolutely say no to this, because without the hand's ligaments and the muscles within it to move the finger to perform any kind of function, the finger is useless. It maintains the appearance of a finger only, but cannot perform the function of a working, operational finger.

Likewise, without the finger, the hand cannot function properly. It requires all it's smaller parts of the whole to perform as the one hand. Afterall, a hand without fingers is not really a hand, as we can understand a hand to be - it is an incomplete mass of flesh which has no function or quality to it. With all the ligaments and muscles it has within it, the hand cannot use those ligaments and muscles to grasp an object without fingers with which to do so. It is still recognizable as a hand, but without it's fingers it is useless.

So let's take this example and slap it onto the ideas of Brain and Mind, shall we?

I would suggest that for this example, we understand that the Mind is the whole, which has many parts within it with which to function properly. It is, in essence, the Hand. The Brain, likewise, is a part of the whole, and is for this example akin to the fingers and thumb.

Taking the above example, and applying it here, we can easily say that "One" Mind is comprised of many parts making up it's whole, including the "One" Brain. Taking the Brain first, we can understand now, rather easily, that it is a separate entity, recognizable as a Brain with of without the Mind attached. A Mortician would be able to tell you this were true, as a corpse's Brain can be observed as a Brain, simply inactive. It is recognizable, but cannot possibly function on it's own separate, without being connected to the Mind. It cannot perform any function, or serve any purpose detached.

Likewise, the Mind must follow suit in the example above, and be understood to be a Mind even as the Brain is taken from it. It would appear as a Mind, be able to be recognized, but couldn't function properly without the Brain being a part to it. Without the Brain, the Mind would be a shadow of it's former self, in this view, and while still able to Be, wouldn't be able to perform any remarkable function, or serve any purpose anywhere near what it could while having all it's parts intact. Just as a Hand without Fingers could serve a small purpose - possibly by being something to lean on, or push open a door with - the mind in this capacity couldn't perform it's originally designed function, and be MUCH less useful in this state.

Do the Mind and the Brain intermingle at all?

I believe by using the above examples, we can assuredly agree that the Mind and the Brain do, in fact, intermingle with one another intimately. They are both separate entities, as we found, but are intrinsically connected to one another to the point which without one, the other would suffer tremendously. This question has been answered to my satisfaction by the examples above, and I hope to yours as well - if not, find the comment box below!

Is the Mind or the Brain dominant over the other?

Again using the example already supposed above, I can say at this point that this question becomes rather clear to me. The Brain, while being an integral part of the whole Mind, cannot even exist other than in appearance on it's own, much like the Finger - it simply dies apart from the Hand. Thus is the fate of the Brain - when separated from the whole of the Mind, it simply dies, and cannot live on by itself. It cannot stand alone and perform any function whatsoever.

The Mind, however, seems to have the ability to survive and function - even on a much more limited scale - on it's own separate from the Brain. Much like the Hand would live on, but be simply crippled, without the Fingers, the Mind would seem able to survive in some form without the Brain at all. It's abilities would be severely lacking, and desperately wanting, but it would survive - I believe - and continue on in whatever state it's left in.

Conclusion:

The Mind seems to be the encompassing "One" to the whole between itself and the Brain, and the Brain merely a smaller, but sufficiently important, part of that whole. The Brain, while intrinsically connected to the Mind, is not required for the Mind's survival, but is necessary for the Mind, as a whole, to function properly and serve an expected purpose.

Thanks for reading, and I hope your BRAIN doesn't hurt, like mine does right now ;)

Are We Living A Dream Or Is Our Dream The Reality?

We humans have five senses (over 4000 years ago, Ancient Egyptians wrote claiming to experience 365 different senses, ironically the same amount of days in our modern calendar year!) which we utilize to experience the world around us. This is an undisputed scientific and biological fact which cannot be argued against; however, I don't intend to argue against that statement. We indeed DO experience the world, or universe if you will, around us using the five basic senses we're accustomed to using. 

We have eyes with which to see, ears with which to hear, a nose with which to smell, a tongue with which to taste, and skin with which to touch. Another undeniable, scientific fact. What isn't undeniable are the definitions of the terms used: "Seeing", "Hearing", "Smelling", "Tasting", "Touching". Those terms have a few meanings, but only one is commonly understood and accepted; I think it's high time that the accepted definition of these words be changed dramatically, so here we go - down the rabbit hole possibly to it's lower levels!

SIGHT

THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING

Commonly, we understand that the act of "seeing" any "thing" is experienced when light travels into our pupils, is flip-flopped, the rods and cones of the retina start gathering black/white/color imagery and then convert that information into electronic neuro-pulse waves, sent to our brain which then processes the offered information and we then "see" the "thing(s)" that is around us.

In a nutshell, if all that madness flew right over your noggin, the objects outside our body are reflecting light waves (cool nugget: the color of an object is dependent on what light waves it reflects, not absorbs!) which our eyes then pick up on and transfer to our brain which shows us what we're looking at. Typically, the question of "What is sight?" ends there most of the time, and it very much shouldn't.

THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING

Uncommonly, someone gets the wild idea to keep that question/answer thing about sight rolling, as I have recently, and starts to explore the more remote and profound concepts of what sight truly is. Concentrating on some particular idea for a length of time is equivalent, in philosophical terms, to meditation; that's just what I've been doing on the idea of senses as of late, and what I found my conclusion on sight was this:

Viewing the outside world is exactly the same as viewing one's dream world.

There are a few reasons why I come to this conclusion, and I will endeavor to list them all without forgetting any of them here.

1. The imagery that is collected by the eyes in one's waking, conscious life and sent to the brain for translation is the same imagery used in one's dreaming life - regardless of the fact that the imagery used in the dreaming life means completely different things than in the "real" world.
2. The images of "things" that we "see" in the universe around us only exist in our minds, individually. There is a certain level of common understanding that a tree appears in this way, a cat appears in this way, etc. but this must be learned. A newborn baby cannot distinguish a tree from a cat or a cat from a 747 jetliner - it has no concept of those "things" and even though sees them, cannot comprehend those objects, therefore they might as well not exist at that point. Whether dreaming or awake, the only place that anything is truly "seen" is within our own mind.
3. Every atom (Which is the building block of everything!) is 99.999% empty space with unlimited stores of energy contained within. If I turn the transparency setting of my Photoshop project layer to just 10% I can begin to view the layers behind it as it just begins to become transparent. If I were to crank that transparency setting to 99.999% the layer I was editing would literally disappear from view. I wouldn't be able to see it anymore. For all intents and purposes, it would be invisible, and not exist to me.
4. If we were to view, or "see" objects as they truly were, they would appear to be invisible and not even exist to us. (See 3.)

SOUND

THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING

The traditional way we understand hearing various sounds around us is that sound waves created from an outside source travel at a fixed rate of speed outward and if our ears are close enough to pick up the wave frequency, and if that frequency is within our discernible area, we 'hear' it. The sound is then sent via our inner ear, the eardrum, transformed into electronic pulses, and then into our brain where it is translated into an understandable thing which we can recognize as a sound - whether that sound be common or uncommon, or simply unknown.

THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING

Uncommonly, the concept of sound is observed in a different way, which I have been fortunate enough to have a mind that's keen on viewing things in different ways in order to break them down and dissect them anew. I don't say that in a way to mean I'm somehow better than anyone else - I'm certainly not; I say that with the knowledge that any human being has the capability of doing the same as I do, but most simply are too distracted by other things to do it. I will attempt to explain why I view sound in a different way than the traditional.

1. Understanding that our human capability to receive and process sound waves is extremely limited to a small fraction of the entire spectrum of the sound waves that can possibly exist, it is clear that we only perceive an extremely limited amount of what's going on around us. This is shown clearly by the 'dog whistle' device.
2. The un-heard sound waves which are bombarding our bodies but cannot be 'heard' by our brains still have an effect on us both mentally and physically. They still exist, therefore they still much have an effect of some kind.
3. Understanding that our brain processes and completely ignores certain audible sound waves upon receiving them from the ear shows that we aren't even 'hearing' everything that can be heard in our very limited capacity anyway. Only a fraction of the fraction that we possibly can hear is recognized and not filtered out as 'background noise'.
4. If we were capable of recognizing every 'audible' sound wave that is processed by our brains, it would assuredly result in our ability to focus being completely destroyed by an overflow of audio stimulus. It is therefore understood that the human brain is simply not capable of functioning without the ability to filter out certain sounds entirely.
5. Certain sound wave frequencies can literally alter a person's mood, outlook, and attitude; sometimes on a person by person level according to certain past experiences (a person hears a familiar sound that reminds them of a positive childhood experience and their mood becomes more positive, while everyone else hears the same sound but is unaffected), or a generalized, all-encompassing level (your neighborhood grocery store plays a certain playlist of music to relax your mind in order to loosen your purse as you shop).

Sound waves are very special, because it is my concerted belief that everything around us, including ourselves, are nothing but wave frequency - audible wave frequencies are simply a certain type that we are programmed to be able to 'hear' and process as what we call sound.

SMELL & TASTE

These two senses I'm not going to bother covering, just because the traditional way of understanding them is the same way that I understand them to be - with a few minor adjustments. The adjustments are basically the addition of the ideas that everything is mostly empty space, so our minds are actually fabricating imagery for us to experience - smells and tastes are simply creations of our mind on an individual basis (some people dislike the taste of onions while others love tasting onions), or again a collective basis (everyone knows what sweet is, sour is, and bland is).

TOUCH

THE TRADITIONAL UNDERSTANDING

The usual way in which we humans understand touching things is that we come into contact with an object of some kind, and our skin's nerves and sensors transfer that information in electromagnetic pulse form to our brains where it is then translated into something which we can recognize and learn about. The sensation of burning when a child first puts his hand over a lit candle sends a clear signal to the brain that it needs to send a message to the body to withdraw immediately, and offer the sensation of pain so that the child learns not to repeat that mistake a second time.

THE CORRECT UNDERSTANDING

While the traditional way of understanding 'touch' may be true in some aspects, the core of it is simply incorrect and needs a better explanation. A bit of research and knowledge of certain things is required for this understanding to take place, but as it is considered 'fringe' and 'theory' it isn't taken very seriously nor is it in the mainstream of science - but it very much should be.

1. Understanding that every molecule in every 'thing' is 99.999% empty space, and that we cannot walk through walls when we clearly should be able to, something else must be going on which explains why empty space pressing against empty space cannot pass through one another.
2. Reflecting on this for only a short time, any thinking person (I think) should be able to come to the following conclusion: there are forces within 'things' which repel one another, and in some cases do not (such as many liquids which can be mixed together and entirely intermingle to create a new liquid).
3. Taking into consideration that every 'thing' is emitting it's own wave frequency pattern, it must be concluded that certain objects, such as the human body and a wood structure, have such differing wave frequencies in their natures that they cannot intermingle at all, and repel one another completely.
4. Understanding that at the precise instant of impact, an insect being hit by a vehicle on the road exerts the exact same amount of force against the vehicle as the vehicle exerts on the insect, until the vehicle's sheer mass wins out and decimates the insect, it can be said the following:
5. When we 'touch' anything, such as a wall in our home, we aren't really touching it at all, we're simply being made aware of the force pressing back against us, and when the force from one object's wave frequency pattern is far greater than the opposing wave frequency pattern, it can 'break' the opposing pattern.

CONCLUSION

In closing, it must be understood that we never see, hear, smell, taste, or touch anything outside our 'body'. Anything that we experience through what we call our senses is entirely dependent on our mind creating imagery, or a symbol, to represent whatever it is we're experiencing around us in a way which can be rendered intelligible, understandable, and translatable into what our feeble brains can comprehend. You obviously aren't meant to take this as the absolute truth - I don't believe anything I come across without first researching it myself and coming to my own conclusions, and I would hope you don't blindly believe me without researching these things for yourself as well. As always, much love and keep learning...learn something new every day and keep your mind alive!