Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: The Brain=Mind Fallacy
June 1, 2012 at 3:56 pm
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2012 at 3:58 pm by fr0d0.)
(June 1, 2012 at 8:06 am)Ace Otana Wrote: It's a very complex subject. Even I'm having trouble understanding some parts. However after months of reading I've learnt quite a bit.
I remember someone mentioning an old 90's computer and that it could never be turned off because all the data in it would be lost. The computer had to be left on for the data to remain and that just like the human brain, if it ever shuts down all the information that makes you who you are and allows conciousness would be destroyed and so ultimately, you cease to exist. Seeing as all the years of data being stored would be destroyed through inactivity. We dream while sleeping to keep the brain active.
We are the brain and when it finally shuts down, it'll be the end of you. Does anyone find that....scary or worrying?
Strange that you support the OP here, and rail against it consciously.
There is some transference of thought, of what went to make you 'you'. ie you may have written things down, recorded some music, passed on some ideas... So that 'you' doesn't completely vanish like the unsalvageable computer.
The causation from the physical is evident, it can skip hosts. Physics describes one side of that process. I don't know what describes the other part, my eyes are closed to such nonsense 
Posts: 3872
Threads: 39
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
43
RE: The Brain=Mind Fallacy
June 1, 2012 at 3:59 pm
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2012 at 4:00 pm by Ace Otana.)
(June 1, 2012 at 3:56 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: There is some transference of thought, of what went to make you 'you'. ie you may have written things down, recorded some music, passed on some ideas... So that 'you' doesn't completely vanish like the unsalvageable computer.
Interesting, care to explain?
Sounds like you're talking about the transference of information not conciousness.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Posts: 19788
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: The Brain=Mind Fallacy
June 1, 2012 at 4:00 pm
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2012 at 4:08 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(June 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm)StatCrux Wrote: (June 1, 2012 at 3:40 pm)Chuck Wrote: You are not even bark up a tree, much less the right tree.
The problem is that you're equating the concept of thought with the process of thought. Going back to the analogy, the process of thought cannot be seen in same way as speed with a car, speed is not a process occurring in the car.
The process of the fuel burning in cylinders to move pistons and the crank shaft and gears and wheels is the process whereby the behavior of the car attains speed. So the concept of the speed reflects the result of the process.
The process of the neurons (in your case, neuron) firing in a prospcribed manner and causing your brain the process and catagorize information and generating signals and commandes to give you perception and actuation is the process whereby the behavior of brain attains thought. So the concept of thought reflects the result of the process.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: The Brain=Mind Fallacy
June 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm
(June 1, 2012 at 3:59 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Sounds like you're talking about the transference of information not conciousness.
"Information" is consciousness without personality isn't it? Say you see a Van Gogh - you don't process it as pure information - you understand it together with trying to understand the personality that created it. Memories of you held by your loved ones you wouldn't describe as information without feelings attached would you?
I think Wooters point is just that thought/ mind processes aren't physical. They use a physical transport, and are generated and amplified physically. Anyone would be incorrect in asserting that thoughts had to be material, which seems to be clearly true to me.
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: The Brain=Mind Fallacy
June 1, 2012 at 4:20 pm
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2012 at 4:24 pm by StatCrux.)
(June 1, 2012 at 4:00 pm)Chuck Wrote: (June 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm)StatCrux Wrote: The problem is that you're equating the concept of thought with the process of thought. Going back to the analogy, the process of thought cannot be seen in same way as speed with a car, speed is not a process occurring in the car.
The process of the fuel burning in cylinders to move pistons and the crank shaft and gears and wheels is the process whereby the behavior of the car attains speed. So the concept of the speed reflects the result of the process.
The process of the neurons (in your case, neuron) firing in a prospcribed manner and causing your brain the process and catagorize information and generating signals and commandes to give you perception and actuation is the process whereby the behavior of brain attains thought. So the concept of thought reflects the result of the process.
We're getting there...so now you've moved the goalposts and introduced a separate process. So are you now saying that thought is a non-physical abstract concept which emerges from a physical process? (neurons firing etc) That's the analogy car=brain, fuel etc=neurons, speed=thought? Is that your position, which is what I said in the first place..thanks for seeing the flaw and having to add the fuel system etc..oh and recognizing thought as distinct from the actual process itself.
Posts: 19788
Threads: 57
Joined: September 24, 2010
Reputation:
85
RE: The Brain=Mind Fallacy
June 1, 2012 at 4:26 pm
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2012 at 4:28 pm by Anomalocaris.)
I moved the goal post, are were you always so dense and inhibited by the amorphous Christian fog that you had no idea where the playing field was?
Posts: 3872
Threads: 39
Joined: August 25, 2008
Reputation:
43
RE: The Brain=Mind Fallacy
June 1, 2012 at 4:30 pm
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2012 at 5:11 pm by Ace Otana.)
(June 1, 2012 at 4:11 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: "Information" is consciousness without personality isn't it? Say you see a Van Gogh - you don't process it as pure information - you understand it together with trying to understand the personality that created it. Memories of you held by your loved ones you wouldn't describe as information without feelings attached would you?
The person you are comes mostly if not entirely from memory. Which is completely physical.
Information comes from your eyes. That information is sent to the brain to be translated and that data will be stored in your memory and that memory can affect the person you are. I don't think there is a transference of thought, and that thought is merely the combination of data being sent from one part of the brain to the other. Depending on what information you receive from your senses is what determines if you can understand it, and subconsciously activate certain chemicals. Like love if the sight of someone hot comes into view. Senses constantly sending data, brain translates it and stores that data, depending on what's been translated will determine what other parts of the brain will be used and which chemicals fire causing emotion/feeling.
I can only say so much on the topic, I'm still learning. 
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subject...ture.shtml
http://vadim.oversigma.com/MAS862/Project.html
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: The Brain=Mind Fallacy
June 1, 2012 at 4:37 pm
(June 1, 2012 at 4:26 pm)Chuck Wrote: I moved the goal post, are were you always so dense and inhibited by the amorphous Christian fog that you had no idea where the playing field was?
well my position hasn't changed from my first post in this thread, you've been to Timbuktu and back, picking up a fuel system on the way! You still haven't given any indication as to whether you think abstract concepts are physical or non-physical, you equated thought with abstract concepts, so are thoughts physical or non-physical in your opinion? Now that you have clearly differentiated thought from the process that physically occurs.
Posts: 30680
Threads: 2120
Joined: May 24, 2012
Reputation:
71
RE: The Brain=Mind Fallacy
June 1, 2012 at 4:46 pm
(This post was last modified: June 1, 2012 at 4:54 pm by Brian37.)
Why is this thread continuing?
Seriously, the bottom line is "we" do not have "spirits" and there is no "mind" or "soul". The OP is merely trying to drag all of us into his woo.
When the brain dies, YOU DIE. That is it. The more we coddle their fantasies the more they try to pull "AH HA" garbage.
This is merely human ignorance in refusing to face one's finite existence. It is merely a psychological anthropomorphic reflection of the "fight" mechanism in evolution. I is literally "Dawkin's moth". If a bad guess gives us comfort, and gets us to the point of reproduction, the delusion isn't real, but the placebo can work as a coping mechanism.
(June 1, 2012 at 4:37 pm)StatCrux Wrote: (June 1, 2012 at 4:26 pm)Chuck Wrote: I moved the goal post, are were you always so dense and inhibited by the amorphous Christian fog that you had no idea where the playing field was?
well my position hasn't changed from my first post in this thread, you've been to Timbuktu and back, picking up a fuel system on the way! You still haven't given any indication as to whether you think abstract concepts are physical or non-physical, you equated thought with abstract concepts, so are thoughts physical or non-physical in your opinion? Now that you have clearly differentiated thought from the process that physically occurs.
THOUGHTS ARE NOT PHYSICAL DUMB ASS! ANY MORE THAN SPEED IS PHYSICAL.
It is not our fault that you do not want to face that when your brain dies you die.
Brain=car
Thoughts=speed, car in motion
If the engine breaks down or explodes and is beyond repair the car cannot speed.
It is not any more complicated than that.
Grow up!
Posts: 390
Threads: 8
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
2
RE: The Brain=Mind Fallacy
June 1, 2012 at 5:06 pm
(June 1, 2012 at 4:46 pm)Brian37 Wrote: THOUGHTS ARE NOT PHYSICAL DUMB ASS! ANY MORE THAN SPEED IS PHYSICAL.
Brain=car
Thoughts=speed, car in motion
If the engine breaks down or explodes and is beyond repair the car cannot speed.
It is not any more complicated than that.
Grow up!
So now you are saying thoughts are not physical? I'm happy with that, that's what I said from the outset. Thought cannot be reduced to a physical object that exists in the brain as it is not physical, by your own admission.
|
