36. Mind is a whirlpool
In 1977, a compatriot of mine, named Ilya Prigogine, received the Nobel prize for his theories about ‘dissipative structures’. Aren’t we all proud of him!
◊◊◊
The core of ‘dissipative structures’ is easily explained with an example. Mainly, when one puts enough ‘energy’ into a system, then in certain circumstances a new structure may arise with characteristics that are fully its own. That is: the new structure is not the prior structure anymore. For example: a stream of water that flows hard enough, may engender a whirlpool. This whirlpool is not the stream anymore. It’s something different, something that exists on its own, with very other characteristics than those of the stream.
◊◊◊
Mind is frequently looked upon as something that is the result of the working of the brain. First there is the brain, the working brain, and this ‘working’ gives rise to what we call ‘mind’. Or: ‘mind’ is the working of the brain, something like a computer program that is at run time nothing more than the working of the computer.
◊◊◊
But mind is extremely complex and is continuously working in all its complexity. This is: there is much ‘energy’ in it. In Prigogine-speak, one can see what directly comes from the brain, the result of its working, as the stream. Then mind itself is to me not like the stream, but more like the whirlpool: something with its own characteristics, something that exists on its own.
◊◊◊
So mind is a whirlpool… but that’s not the end.
◊◊◊
Mind also influences the brain. One thought brings about another thought. But a thought cannot be thought without, at microlevel, a change in the brain. Therefore every single thought that is brought about by another thought, brings with it a change of the brain. Mind, at the mind-level existing on its own, changes the brain.
◊◊◊
So brain makes mind… mind makes brain… but that’s not the end.
◊◊◊
It’s not like one makes the other first, and only then the other makes the one. It’s a continuous happening, in which the distinction of what exactly is happening, depends on how you prefer to look at it. Since the smallest change in the one is a change in the other, one may as well say that one and the other are the same thing.
◊◊◊
Brain is mind.
◊◊◊
But as you might have guessed… this too may well not be the end of things. It is however the end of this sticky thought.
◊◊◊
Related Posts
14. Is This Me, or Is It My Brain?
I use my brain, but who is ‘I’ without a brain? Is a brain an instrument of ‘I’? If this is the case, then is ‘I’ a kind of homunculus that is present somewhere in a separate box in the brain? In the Middle Ages it was thought that this was indeed the case. For Read the full article…
Features of Subconceptual Processing
According to Subconceptual Processing Theory (SPT), many characteristics of our thinking should be traceable to this phenomenon, as indeed, they are. SPT is the self-consistent – at least – whole of theorizing about mental subconceptual processing. In the human case, this is about how neurons, synapses, molecules, etc., achieve cognition in a broad sense. Origin Read the full article…
From Boss to Burnout
It’s not about the amount of work but the amount of meaningless work. In contrast to a leader – let alone an Open Leader – a boss doesn’t take care of meaningfulness. That’s why they call him ‘the boss.’ Boss to blame? Not exactly. It’s not because one doesn’t take good care of something that Read the full article…