brain, mind distinction

www.tricycle.com/interview/embodied-mind

"Almost two and a half decades ago, in The Embodied Mind, you critiqued a notion of mind that was already prevalent then and that continues to frame much of the current neuroscience research on meditation. What is that view, and what is wrong with it?

We criticized the view that the mind is made up of representations inside the head. The cognitive science version says that the mind is a computer—the representations are the software, and the brain is the hardware. Although cognitive scientists today don’t think the brain works the way a digital computer does, many of them, especially if they’re neuroscientists, still think the mind is something in the head or the brain. And this idea shows up in the neuroscience of meditation. But this idea is confused. It’s like saying that flight is inside the wings of a bird. The mind is relational. It’s a way of being in relation to the world. You need a brain, just as the bird needs wings, but the mind exists at a different level—the level of embodied being in the world."

You and your time and space kick.

Were you aware of Tarthang Tulku's book, Time, Space, and Knowledge ?-- your friend Mitsu's (and my) teacher Steven Tainer has major responsibility for it as its editor. (I don't think TT was very fluent in English at the time of its writing.) I never read the whole thing; it was a doorstop of a densely philosophical book as I remember. Might be worth a look-see.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Tainer

"Steven Tainer is one of the founders of the Kira Institute.[8] Through collaboration between Kira colleagues, including Piet Hut, he explores the interface between modern, scientifically-framed perspectives and matters involving human values. Between 1998 and 2002, Piet Hut and Steven Tainer organised a series of annual summer schools, bringing graduate students from various disciplines together in order to engage in an open Socratic dialog, centred around science and contemplation. Also a series of articles were published in 2006 on Ways of Knowing, drawing from intensive discussions between Hut and Tainer.

Steven Tainer and Eiko Ikegami[9] are currently working on a research project, titled "Virtual Civility, Trust, and Avatars: Ethnology in Second Life". While aiming to contribute to the knowledge of how to make virtual worlds socially meaningful collaborative knowledge productions, the study will also consider if the new virtual social forms would become the new standard forms of trust and civility in human interactions generally in real life.[10]"

Tainer ghost wrote TSK for his teacher Tarthang Tulku; his current work includes a summer institute on "Ways of Knowing" at Princeton; the Kira Institute in which he participates seems just the sort of thing that discusses brain/mind distinction, nexus of science and meditation, etc. Thought it might be up your alley, so to speak. Also know that you are in conversation with his student Mitsu.

Tainer was a programmer for his work life before turning to teaching full-time; he was a "Buddhist Geek" over 20 years ago.

It seems to come down to a preference for the subjective/immaterial/experiential approach, or the objective/material/analytical approach. Each has its uses and its deficiencies; and none of us takes only ONE approach to understand these things, in every instance, aside from making an argument. Our understanding, like our lives generally, are works in progress and we use what works best in the moment. And describe what we're doing as best we can.

"Psychology Comes To Halt As Weary Researchers Say The Mind Cannot Possibly Study Itself" - The Onion

The mind is relational. It’s a way of being in relation to the world. You need a brain, just as the bird needs wings, but the mind exists at a different level—the level of embodied being in the world

And I would say also, the mind isn't a separate thing from the world that somehow mediates the world through a relation - the mind is the world. No mind, no world.

I'll just do this for Rowan before he has a chance:

Lol if I'd thought of it I would've too

Hive mind for the win!

Chris, I just remembered a time/mind book that is even a better fit for you, I'll bet (because it's based on Dogen)-- Katagiri's book Each Moment Is the Universe: Zen and the Way of Being Time.

Here's what I found at the first marker I'd left in my copy: "If you try to examine your life analytically, asking yourself who you are, finally you will realize that there is something you cannot reach. You don't know what it is, but you feel the presence of something you want to connect with. This is sometimes called the absolute. Buddha and Dogen Zenji say true self. Christians say God. But even though you are aware that there is something you are seeking, it's pretty difficult to connect with it directly. That's why we practice zazen.

To contact true self, first of all make your body and mind calm and see the reality of how human affairs arise. When you investigate human affairs through and through, taking layers from yourself one by one, at last you realize that something is right in front of you, something that is open not only to you but to everyone. That is called moment. Philosophically speaking, maybe it is time, or transiency. Or maybe it is God, Buddha, or ultimate being. You can use many words to explain it, but it's hard to contact moment directly. How can you know this moment before you try to explain it using physics, mathematics, psychology, or philosophy? If you ask me how, I cannot tell you. There is no answer. If we have to say something, maybe we say it is unattainable. Does that mean it's impossible for human beings to know? No, there is some way.

There is a way to contact moment called kanno-doko, the way of rapport. Rapport is not something mysterious-- it's very real."