Jess asked:

Do we have a mind in addition to our brains? If not then how do we explain conscious thoughts?

============

The answer to your first question depends, of course, of just what you conceive "mind" to be. Some
people (philosophers included) conceive "mind" to be some sort of non-material "spirit" that animates
the human animal. In which case, naturally, the answer to your question would be "yes". Others are
more materialistic, and consider that all there is is the brain, so the answer to your question would be
"no".

Me, however, I consider the "mind" to be the product of the brain in action. Somewhat akin to the
majesty of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony being the product of an orchestra in action. Materially, all that
exists is the orchestra. But the majestic harmony produced can be regarded (and studied) as
something entirely different.

As to your second question, I would highly recommend Consciousness Explainedby Daniel C.
Dennett. I found it an eminently readable and very entertaining exploration of your very question. I
feel sure you will enjoy it.

Stuart Burns

Bearing in mind that we call many things by names of which we do not know what they are — for
example, God, but Mind will do as well — it's a pretty tall order to give a positive response. However,
a very simple argument is that several hundred thousand species on earth possess a brain, but only
humans seem to command a mind in addition. In my view, this is a perfectly conclusive basis from
which to argue for a mind as an autonomous agency. This need not imply that it's a thing — in fact, it
is also pretty conclusively established that the mind is not a physical structure, but a process by which
the brain self-organizes its internal dynamics. How it achieves this self-organisation is a million-dollar
question; and the only clue we seem to have to date is the complexity of signalling required for
thought processes and the like, as compared to the routine of somatic functionality.

There are, of course, hundreds of books and papers available for you to chase up this issue; but the
worst you could do is to plunge head first into this wasp's nest. This area is the more contentious
because we know so little that can be called factual. So you find books like Dennett's popular
Consciousness Explained,which doesn't explain consciousness at all, but only his toy model of a
pretty weird mechanical contraption he calls a "Joycean machine", or Crick's Astonishing Hypothesis,
which simply gets stuck on visual perception and moves no further; or Eccles Evolution of the Brain,
which after presenting all the latest findings goes back to Descartes to offer a replacement for the
pineal gland; and so on and so forth. If you want a sane perspective aimed at the ordinary reader, I
suggest you consult Gerald Edelman's Bright Air, Brilliant Fireand/ or Walter Freeman's How Brains
make up their Mind.Then you can make up your own mind on what you want to believe; but at least
you'll be informed on what we know — from the horse's mouth.

Jürgen Lawrenz

Sydney