On the nature of mind

[RexT]

On the nature of mind, as used in the phrase “Theory of Mind”, aside from its experiential and intuitive influence on us; what is the essential quality of either mind or nature that makes mind distinctive from anything else that is part of nature? In a certain sense, I see mind everywhere in everything. In this view there is nothing distinctive about mind because everything is an aspect of it. Form the ability of nature to form reproductive structures, to choice making structures to its consistency and its drive to pull order from chaos, everything seems intelligent and rational. The thing that seems irrational is the notion that mind is an emergent property of matter because matter itself seems to be an intelligent behavior.

I don’t consider matter to be conscious, but consciousness does seem to be a material form or process of matter. Some say the universe is conscious because we are part of the universe and we are conscious. But I don’t necessarily think that consciousness and mind are synonymous. Thus, the universe can be an unconscious mind or not. Is there anything that we usually associate with mind (except for consciousness) that we cannot find functioning elsewhere in nature?

[Preno]

In a certain sense, I see mind everywhere in everything.In what sense? Surely not in any normal sense. If you "see mind" in a stone, then you simply don't know what "mind" means.

[Copernicus]

RexT, the mind can be looked at as a collection of properties--memory, self-awareness, emotion, sensation, calculation, etc. It is clearly associated with a brain, and brains exist only in animals--forms of life that move around. Brains seem likely to have evolved for one principal reason: to allow mobile beings to avoid danger and seek pleasure. They are primarily guidance systems. All the other functionality is derivative of that, even self-awareness. Self-awareness and awareness of one's surroundings has clear survival advantage. Indeed, AI researchers have even made it a topic of interest in professional discussions, because robots need to be aware of themselves in order to better accomplish tasks. Even non-robots, such as airliners, constantly monitor themselves and communicate information about their internal state to the pilots and ground stations.

Now, is the universe in any sense self-aware? Is it like a brain? I highly doubt it. There seems to be no reason why the universe would need to evolve such a capacity. Does it compete for survival with anything else? Does it need a guidance system? The chances are that only creatures like us have minds, because we have need of them in order to survive in our environment.

[RexT]

In what sense? Surely not in any normal sense. If you "see mind" in a stone, then you simply don't know what "mind" means. I take it that you offer "stone" as a property of nature that is distinct from any property of mind?

At the very least I can see stone as forming a type of memory or record, a solidification phase, a process that very closely resembles the way our minds form and pass through phases of development. We even use phrases like "concrete thinking" to define a phase of development. The mind of a child begins and forms much like a planet. At first chaotic and one might say gaseous, the mind later begins to solidify around certain concepts like morality, family, society, etc. I am referring to beliefs of course and how the mind processes reality.

We might think of the mind as we do planets. The most ideal state of a mind is neither solid, liquid nor gaseous, but a combination of all three. On its surface, the mind should form archipelagoes of rather solid ideas about things, yet separated and surrounded mostly by a great liquid unknown. The archipelagoes represent stone structures that settled in the formation of the mind. These are foundational structures that have become the most stable and unshakable, and they leave a record of the developmental process.

Or perhaps you simply meant a small stone you might find laying in a field. But does our own mind not also leave fragments strewn about in its own developmental process? Tiny fragments of memories one cannot rightly place to its site of origin. So whether you see the big picture or the tiny fragments of the mind, or whether your own mental processes have solidified into a dead rock like Mars or a variegated and thriving planet like Earth, the stone analogy finds itself well represented in a Theory of Mind.

[kennethamy]

I take it that you offer "stone" as a property of nature that is distinct from any property of mind?



Stones are not properties, so they are not properties of nature. Properties are designated by adjectives, like "red", or "large". But "stone" is a noun. Therefore, it does not designated a property. Nouns are names of objects or persons.

And, no one thinks that stones have minds (except for, perhaps, animists). There is no reason the believe that stones are conscious, and consciousness is a necessary property of having a mind. What consciousness is, I am not prepared to say, and it is something that both philosophers and scientists are trying to understand.

[RexT]

Stones are not properties, so they are not properties of nature. Properties are designated by adjectives, like "red", or "large". But "stone" is a noun. Therefore, it does not designated a property. Nouns are names of objects or persons.

And, no one thinks that stones have minds (except for, perhaps, animists). There is no reason the believe that stones are conscious, and consciousness is a necessary property of having a mind. What consciousness is, I am not prepared to say, and it is something that both philosophers and scientists are trying to understand.I know that stone is not considered a property of nature. But solid is a property wouldn't you say?

And I reject your premise that consciousness is a necessary property of mind. Are you saying that the subconscious mind is not a property of mind?

[Preno]

At the very least I can see stone as forming a type of memory or record, a solidification phase, a process that very closely resembles the way our minds form and pass through phases of development. We even use phrases like "concrete thinking" to define a phase of development. The mind of a child begins and forms much like a planet. At first chaotic and one might say gaseous, the mind later begins to solidify around certain concepts like morality, family, society, etc. I am referring to beliefs of course and how the mind processes reality.That's an interesting metaphor, but I don't see how saying that the process of forming a mind may be likened to the process of the solidification of a gas supports your claim that you see mind in everything, thus in particular in stones.
Or perhaps you simply meant a small stone you might find laying in a field. But does our own mind not also leave fragments strewn about in its own developmental process? Tiny fragments of memories one cannot rightly place to its site of origin. So whether you see the big picture or the tiny fragments of the mind, or whether your own mental processes have solidified into a dead rock like Mars or a variegated and thriving planet like Earth, the stone analogy finds itself well represented in a Theory of Mind.I was not talking about any "stone analogy", I was talking about stones. Stones don't have minds, so I am at a loss as to why you see minds in them.

[RexT]

RexT, the mind can be looked at as a collection of properties--memory, self-awareness, emotion, sensation, calculation, etc. It is clearly associated with a brain, and brains exist only in animals--forms of life that move around. Brains seem likely to have evolved for one principal reason: to allow mobile beings to avoid danger and seek pleasure. They are primarily guidance systems. All the other functionality is derivative of that, even self-awareness. Self-awareness and awareness of one's surroundings has clear survival advantage. Indeed, AI researchers have even made it a topic of interest in professional discussions, because robots need to be aware of themselves in order to better accomplish tasks. Even non-robots, such as airliners, constantly monitor themselves and communicate information about their internal state to the pilots and ground stations.

Now, is the universe in any sense self-aware? Is it like a brain? I highly doubt it. There seems to be no reason why the universe would need to evolve such a capacity. Does it compete for survival with anything else? Does it need a guidance system? The chances are that only creatures like us have minds, because we have need of them in order to survive in our environment.Ok, let's take your list "memory, self-awareness, emotion, sensation, calculation", as these are exactly the kinds of properties I want to compare to the properties of nature in general.

This list is not meant to be comprehensive but to give at least one example


Memory - in nature, hysteresis is a form of memory.
Self-awareness - in nature, feedback is a form of self-awareness
Calculation - in nature - evolution runs like a simple (if, then) algorithm

I could deal with the others (emotion, sensation) but it would require lengthy explication.

[Preno]

Well, if all you meant, Rex, is that many aspects of nature can be likened to some aspects of minds, like in the examples in the post above, I agree.

[RexT]

I was not talking about any "stone analogy", I was talking about stones. Stones don't have minds, so I am at a loss as to why you see minds in them.We're at cross purposes here. I don't see minds in rocks. I see rocks as a property or aspect of mind. I see every aspect of nature as an aspect of mind. Try to break either mind or nature down to simple aspects and you will find great similarity, really, that there is not great distinction between them.

[Garrett]

RexT
what is the essential quality of either mind or nature that makes mind distinctive from anything else that is part of nature?
Awareness or subjective experience.

In a certain sense, I see mind everywhere in everything. In this view there is nothing distinctive about mind because everything is an aspect of it. Form the ability of nature to form reproductive structures, to choice making structures to its consistency and its drive to pull order from chaos, everything seems intelligent and rational.
Well, the question then is whether you are seeing meaningful patterns or crystal spheres in the heavens, if you get my meaning. There must be a lot of steps between I'm aware of my experiences to pantheism.

Btw, just to be clear, and as you probably know, I'm sympathetic to your view.

The thing that seems irrational is the notion that mind is an emergent property of matter because matter itself seems to be an intelligent behavior.
I'd say baby steps are needed. Mind is not brain; and without presuming that minds exist independent of brains, then "emergence" seems like the logical next step.

I don’t consider matter to be conscious, but consciousness does seem to be a material form or process of matter.
So some matter is conscious. That leads to the idea that some type of complexity or the way matter is arranged determines whether matter produces consciousness.

Some say the universe is conscious because we are part of the universe
Maybe we are the universe's awareness of itself. We even function in clusters and networks, not unlike neurons!

But I don’t necessarily think that consciousness and mind are synonymous.
What distinction are you seeing there?

Is there anything that we usually associate with mind (except for consciousness) that we cannot find functioning elsewhere in nature?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Since I think "multiple realizability" makes sense, I'll stick with my first answer: awareness or subjective experience.

Btw, it's good to see you, Rex, and although I've always had trouble keeping up with you, it's still fun to try. :)

[RexT]

wOOt! A big hello to you Garrett. It's good to see you too.

I've got to leave for a bit but I'll be back later to address your salient points.

And as for keeping up, it is I that struggles to keep up with you. : )

[kennethamy]

I know that stone is not considered a property of nature. But solid is a property wouldn't you say?

And I reject your premise that consciousness is a necessary property of mind. Are you saying that the subconscious mind is not a property of mind?

Although all stones are solid, some solids are not stones. So, even if solidity (not solid) is a property, why should stone be a property?

If there is such a thing as the subconscious mind, then it would (necessarily) be part of the mind. Again, "subconscious mind" is a noun, not an adjective.

[kennethamy]

wOOt! A big hello to you Garrett. It's good to see you too.

I've got to leave for a bit but I'll be back later to address your salient points.

And as for keeping up, it is I that struggles to keep up with you. : )

Get a room. But, I must allow. It seems to be a marriage made in heaven.

[RexT]

Awareness or subjective experience.Yes, as far as we know. But without an empirical means to test for experience, nature might all be a kind of experience. When two particles attract for instance, there is said to be a force between them. Could force be another word for experience? Experience is rather like force; it is something that is felt, that moves or motivates us toward certain actions or away for other actions. There is a push and pull associated with experience and it comes in many flavors.


Well, the question then is whether you are seeing meaningful patterns or crystal spheres in the heavens, if you get my meaning. There must be a lot of steps between I'm aware of my experiences to pantheism.

Btw, just to be clear, and as you probably know, I'm sympathetic to your view. Well, I'm just relating the aspects associated with mind to aspects of nature where, each seems to simply instantiate a universal or common, shall we say, principle. Memory for example, is a universal principle found in both nature and mind.


I'd say baby steps are needed. Mind is not brain; and without presuming that minds exist independent of brains, then "emergence" seems like the logical next step.Yeah, I realize I've jumped to the end and left out some steps.

The issue I have with emergence is that on some level, everything is emergent on the levels below it. Atoms are emergent properties of elemental particles, molecules are emergent properties of atoms and so on.

What I'm looking at is where does mind begin and end. Does it begin at the level of brain or at the level of fundamental forces? I see it beginning at the latter. It ends also not at the brain but at the boundary of the very universe (if indeed the universe has any boundary). The brain (in my view) is only another level of mind.


So some matter is conscious. That leads to the idea that some type of complexity or the way matter is arranged determines whether matter produces consciousness.Perhaps, but as I stated, I don't think consciousness and mind are synonymous. There is for example binary logic, which I would consider as an aspect of mind, yet I do not consider the process of logic to be conscious.

I'm really trying to avoid consciousness altogether, except to mention in passing that I think it indirectly related to mind.


Maybe we are the universe's awareness of itself. We even function in clusters and networks, not unlike neurons!Yes, it is interesting. One could even imagine a super consciousness emerging from that network of nodes. And we as individuals would be no more aware of it than are individual neurons aware of our consciousness.


What distinction are you seeing there?Well, as already mentioned, logic is a process that is intelligent, and it is or can be automated. There is no particular reason to associate it with consciousness. Also there are instincts, reflexes, the entire autonomic system that regulates all the bodily functions. All very intelligent systems and not at all conscious. Consciousness is related but is again more like a force than a function.


I'm not sure what you're getting at. Since I think "multiple realizability" makes sense, I'll stick with my first answer: awareness or subjective experience.See my post to Copernicus above for examples.

[kennethamy]

Perhaps, but as I stated, I don't think consciousness and mind are synonymous.

But only terms are synonymous or not. For "synonymous" means, "same meaning" and consciousness and mind are not terms. So consciousness and mind cannot be synonymous. Perhaps you mean that consciousness and mind are not identical which is to say, they are one and the same thing. But why would you want to say that?

[RexT]

But only terms are synonymous or not. For "synonymous" means, "same meaning" and consciousness and mind are not terms. So consciousness and mind cannot be synonymous. Perhaps you mean that consciousness and mind are not identical which is to say, they are one and the same thing. But why would you want to say that?Yup, that.

Why; because they are not identical. But I had explained that already.

[kennethamy]

Yup, that.

Why; because they are not identical. But I had explained that already.

You mean because of what you are pleased to call the subconscious mind? Well, if there is such a thing, then how about changing it to the consciousness and subconsciousness, together, being identical with the mind? Will that do the trick?

[RexT]

You mean because of what you are pleased to call the subconscious mind? Well, if there is such a thing, then how about changing it to the consciousness and subconsciousness, together, being identical with the mind? Will that do the trick?Yeah, I think it would. Provided of course there isn't any more to mind than that, which I suspect there is.

[Ian Nerr]

Mind is a computational process. Elementary physics (quantum interactions of particles and atoms) can be seen as a computational process. Computational models of physics are pretty interesting. For example, entropy can be defined in thermodynamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28classical_thermodynamics%29) terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28statistical_thermodynamics%29) and it can also be defined in terms of information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy).

Programming The Universe (http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Universe-Quantum-Computer-Scientist/dp/1400040922) is an interesting book about the idea that the universe is equivalent to a quantum computer. They say quantum computers could, in principle, simulate universes.

Sorry for the off-topic rambling.

[BWE]

Mind is a computational process. Elementary physics (quantum interactions of particles and atoms) can be seen as a computational process. Computational models of physics are pretty interesting. For example, entropy can be defined in thermodynamic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28classical_thermodynamics%29) terms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28statistical_thermodynamics%29) and it can also be defined in terms of information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy).

Programming The Universe (http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Universe-Quantum-Computer-Scientist/dp/1400040922) is an interesting book about the idea that the universe is equivalent to a quantum computer. They say quantum computers could, in principle, simulate universes.

Sorry for the off-topic rambling.

Don't apologize. Cool post.

[Wordy]

RexT unfortunate your term “Theory of Mind” is used in another way too.

Look in the wikipedia on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

The phrase theory of mind (often abbreviated as ToM) is used in several related ways:

* general categories of theories of mind - theories about the nature of 'mind', and its structure and processes;
* theories of mind related to individual minds;
* in recent years, the phrase "theory of mind" has more commonly been used to refer to a specific cognitive capacity: the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own;[1] and
* in philosophy, it refers to the large area of philosophy relating to mind, or to particular theories about what mind is. (See main article philosophy of mind.)


I guess you even put a personal interpretation in it if you see mind in purely material thing. Matter need to be highly organized to emerge a mind out of it.

Stones have no such organization. They are highly random or higly linear in being crystal and they have no mind either.

[RexT]

RexT unfortunate your term “Theory of Mind” is used in another way too.

Look in the wikipedia on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

* general categories of theories of mind - theories about the nature of 'mind', and its structure and processes;
* theories of mind related to individual minds;
* in recent years, the phrase "theory of mind" has more commonly been used to refer to a specific cognitive capacity: the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own;[1] and
* in philosophy, it refers to the large area of philosophy relating to mind, or to particular theories about what mind is. (See main article philosophy of mind.)

I guess you even put a personal interpretation in it if you see mind in purely material thing. Matter need to be highly organized to emerge a mind out of it.

Stones have no such organization. They are highly random or higly linear in being crystal and they have no mind either.(bold mine) I've highlighted the aspects that relate to what I'm trying to discuss. You've made the interpretation as Preno did, which is not what I'm saying at all. I don't see stones as "having" a mind; I see stones as an element or aspect of mind. Specifically, it their solidity and layers and that they represent something like a sturdy foundation on which to build. Those are aspects of mind itself, it's structure and development depend on some degree of solification (using these terms metaphorically of course). But who is to say that actual stones are not metaphors too, physical symbols in a vast universal mind? So it is the universal property of firmness or solidity that is also an aspect of mind that I see in stones.

[Wordy]

On the nature of mind, as used in the phrase “Theory of Mind”, aside from its experiential and intuitive influence on us; what is the essential quality of either mind or nature that makes mind distinctive from anything else that is part of nature?

Yes and no. Sure you could make your own interpretation but usually, in the public square in wikipedia is not Theory of Mind more known in relation to how children develop a theory of mind in others.

What you talk about could be that aspect generalized to all there is.

You see mind in more things then what usually is refered to as the mind in theory of mind as used when academics talks about the development of babies into toddler into children into young adult into fully aware human.

The mind you talk about is All mind or something similar. The whole universe seen as Mind.

Maybe me nitpicking but the words Theory of Mind is usually known to be something very specific. Our ability to draw conclusions on what is going on within another human being so when you refer to stones it kind of get way out on the tangent? At least for me. And remember me is so open minded that I have been interested in New Age even when it was Old Age in 1955 or so. But I have never felt it to have any truth in it, but it is interesting to get why people have such ideas. It is surprising though. :)

[Ian Nerr]

Saying everything is a property of mind because I can only think about it with my mind is like saying everything is a property of my eyes because I can only see it with them.

[Wordy]

Saying everything is a property of mind because I can only think about it with my mind is like saying everything is a property of my eyes because I can only see it with them.

To whom did you direct that comment. If it was me I don't remember me ahd such views? Could you elaborate?

[Ian Nerr]

It's directed to the OP (or anyone making such a statement).

[Jimmy_Mack]

I didn't read everyone else's posts so forgive me if anyone already brought it up but no theory of mind is complete without the understanding of neuro-plasticity--the fundamental ability of the mind to grow in capacity in response to motivating stimulus and not just retain more contents. Another mind property that people almost universally fail to factor into their perceptions of mind is that all animals have minds but all of them including us have functions performed for us by the mind which we are not conscious of. For instance, it is now known that when we sleep and achieve a certain wave state, human growth hormone is released. Surely, cats and dogs sleep so it's fair to say that cat growth hormone and dog growth hormone are released when they sleep just as is the case with every other animal. It is not known yet what exactly the total function of hormonal release is--it is assumed that it is all about healing and rejuvenation but who knows for sure if dreams don't help push some measure of "facilitated variation" in which the growth follows an evolutionary adaptation whose need is perceived chemically by the mind rather than consciously? There's more to the mind than we know and that's not my opinion, it's a fact. People and animals have extraordinary adaptations that are highly specialized--we do not know that "the mind" doesn't have a dynamic we have yet scientifically defined--sleep science is relatively young but "the mind" deserves the benefit of the doubt--we're not so conscious of what we're unconscious about.

[RexT]

Saying everything is a property of mind because I can only think about it with my mind is like saying everything is a property of my eyes because I can only see it with them.You are right. But I haven't tried to say anything like that.

[RexT]

Jimmy Mack, I agree with your observation.

Wordy, yes, I'm talking about the universe as mind, having some of the same properties of our own mind.

The point wasn't to develop some new form of science or religion. It is just an observation I find interesting.

[Wordy]

Jimmy the fundamental ability of the mind to grow in capacity in response to motivating stimulus and not just retain more contents.

Yes sure sometimes it works but it is not 100% always in place. My Mom had ten years to use this capacity to grow enough to grasp the concept of yes and no using hands to sign but she failed to grow after the stroke. She had ten years to learn some 30 hand signs for different concepts like "Want to eat" Want something to drink, want to go to the loo, want to make a phone call and so on. she didn't learn any of them and she had professionals trying to teach her. And us family tried too. My Dad being retired had hours each day to help her learning a simple yes or no. Her brain totally failed to use functional parts to take over these intellectual concepts but that which did function was intact and very active. But the only changes that was growing was the muscles in the lame side of her body. They slowly gained ability to walk with a Rollator as balancing aid.

But intellectually she didn't learn to communicate to us during ten years so I don't see much evidence for the plasticity you talk about.

I have tried to grow in my capacity to learn melodies during some 40 years. I sing every day in hope that before I die out of old age I would be able to sing on tune just once.

If the brain had the alleged capacity to be plastic then I would have learned it by now.

It is too much bragging and generality about this plasticity. It works for some but not for all.

RexT, you use observation in a way me get surprised about. You ascribe it and not observe it?
You attribute and not observe? It is an interpretation and not a measured fact?

[Bamboo]

We are told that Socrates only accepted emotions that were validated by the reason of his own mind. Thus, he did not fear death because he knew nothing of it.

As to evidence of mind/reason applications which exist within the cosmos (excepting consciousness/self-awareness), would Socrates or anyone else detect “mind-reasoned” emotions like love, hate, fear and happiness occurring naturally in the starry universe around us?

As far as we know, one must have a brain in order to have a mind, although we accept that not all brains may conduct distinct emotions. Yet, our typical human brain seems to perform self-sustaining functions, relaying protective emotions via our mind, and gradually gains self-awareness of an identity somehow divorced from the organic matter of the physical brain which curiously remains unaware of itself.

To alter the question, other than apparently similar self-sustaining functions, remarkably ingenious as they may be, what can we say of any further evidence for a universal mind?

If the cosmos does not naturally exhibit reasoned or even self-serving emotions, does that mean there is no “internal guidance system” for the machine, no cosmic brain for the universe? Or does it mean that the humble cosmic brain, if it exists, doesn't enjoy the advanced “emergent properties” of our human version? Or does that mean our limited human senses, which give birth to much of our earthly understanding, are simply not up to the task of detecting a universal mind so we truly know nothing of it?

[RexT]

We are told that Socrates only accepted emotions that were validated by the reason of his own mind. Thus, he did not fear death because he knew nothing of it.

As to evidence of mind/reason applications which exist within the cosmos (excepting consciousness/self-awareness), would Socrates or anyone else detect “mind-reasoned” emotions like love, hate, fear and happiness occurring naturally in the starry universe around us?

As far as we know, one must have a brain in order to have a mind, although we accept that not all brains may conduct distinct emotions. Yet, our typical human brain seems to perform self-sustaining functions, relaying protective emotions via our mind, and gradually gains self-awareness of an identity somehow divorced from the organic matter of the physical brain which curiously remains unaware of itself.

To alter the question, other than apparently similar self-sustaining functions, remarkably ingenious as they may be, what can we say of any further evidence for a universal mind?

If the cosmos does not naturally exhibit reasoned or even self-serving emotions, does that mean there is no “internal guidance system” for the machine, no cosmic brain for the universe? Or does it mean that the humble cosmic brain, if it exists, doesn't enjoy the advanced “emergent properties” of our human version? Or does that mean our limited human senses, which give birth to much of our earthly understanding, are simply not up to the task of detecting a universal mind so we truly know nothing of it?I look at the mind in a broad general sense for basic functions. Emotions, love, self-protection and these kinds of things are not at all general but specific to life/mind of certain creatures. But in a more general sense there are many things our human minds share with the cosmos. I mentioned some in the OP, memory for example. Memory is in mot merely fundamental for a mind but for nature in general. Suppose that the behaviors of matter suddenly forgot how to behave. They really can't forget because the laws and principles of physics won't allow it.

Also, nature tends to encode information in its very structures, much as the brain does; information that is used to build complexity and diversity. In our mind we call this learning, the expansion of knowledge through the increase of meaningful relationships between things that once seemed separate and unrelated become useful parts of something more advanced. The universe behaves the same way. What the universe has done once it tends to repeat, and in so doing finds new pathways to do the same thing based on new relationships. It is like a goal of economy to find the shortest path or the path of least resistance. We find this tendency to be innate in the brain as well.

Anyway, I don't mean to write an essay, which I could, but merely to point to a few behaviors of nature that are inherited by the brain and the formation of the human mind. One gets the sense that everywhere is mind and intelligence working at different levels. This not to be confused woth consciousness but comparative processes in each.

[Wordy]

Emotions, love, self-protection and these kinds of things are not at all general but specific to life/mind of certain creatures.

to me those things are related to and emerge out of what the body does.