(October 8, 2013 at 3:26 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 3:05 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: So, dogs have minds, and thermometers have minds.
I see.
And that is relevant to a discussion of HUMAN brains, exactly how ?
Nice try at deflection.
Have you ever considered getting some help ?

Blah blah blah blah blah philosophy blah blah blah blah.

Christians are so pathetic. They can't interact in the real world of science so they hide in the only place they can, philosophy.

(October 8, 2013 at 3:38 pm)Chas Wrote: Are you claiming there is no such thing as an emergent property?

Not at all. I mentioned at least 4 different kinds of emergent properties in a previous post. None of them apply to the mind-body problem, although I am always willing to learn something new.

---

(October 8, 2013 at 3:50 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Please take some time to realize that reality is not scrutinized by philosophy.

Try to define reality without making reference to philosophy.

(October 8, 2013 at 8:00 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 3:38 pm)Chas Wrote: Are you claiming there is no such thing as an emergent property?

Not at all. I mentioned at least 4 different kinds of emergent properties in a previous post. None of them apply to the mind-body problem, although I am always willing to learn something new.

You accept that emergence is a real phenomenon within complex systems. Since the brain is one of the most complex things we know of, why would you not expect emergent properties to arise from it?

To my way of thinking, the more complex the system, the more likely, more common and perhaps, more inevitable, emergence becomes.

What really are emergent properties anyway? Aren't they simply properties which don't follow predictably from what we know of similar, but less complex phenomena? I may have to go read something on this. I'm not used to thinking about 'emergence'.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: There is also the strange case of John Lorber. Lorber had a measured IQ of 126, yet CAT scans revealed that he had only 10% of normal brain volume. Sure he still had a brain, but not much of one.

Strange indeed. Strange because John Lorber, in this case, is the doctor, not the student with the claimed IQ of 126. Quickly flipping through some accounts, it appears the student had not 10% of his normal brain volume, but more like 30-50% according to one account (it's unclear as this is one of those stories where the details frequently change between the retelling; I suspect there is no actual documented figure for the patient's total brain volume in the literature). The reference to 10% brain volume appears to stem from an unrelated matter mentioned in what appears to be the original reporting of this anecdote, a 1980 article in Science, "Is Your Brain Really Necessary?" by Roger Lewin. The main draw of the particular case was the relatively small thickness of the cortical mantle of the individual which Lorber reports as being little more than a millimeter or so (the approximate resolution of the equipment of that era). Given Lorber's preoccupations and his likely frequent retelling of this particular anecdote, there is probably good reason to treat the whole story with some skepticism.

When you are this pitifully bad at getting the details correct for what is no doubt a favorite example for you, it's little mystery why no one takes you and your conclusions seriously.

(October 8, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 3:26 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Blah blah blah blah blah philosophy blah blah blah blah.

Christians are so pathetic. They can't interact in the real world of science so they hide in the only place they can, philosophy.

No they aren't even hiding in philosophy, just like every other sky daddy club, they hide in superstition.

---

(October 8, 2013 at 4:53 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Mind is to brain as windows is to CPU (Central Processing Unit, also known as the micro-processor, or just processor, the thing made by Intel or AMD).
Although, a brain also has memory, so put a part of the motherboard and the memory in there too.

UGGGGG,

The tower which has the the mother board, hard drive and "software" will not work if BLOWN APART! No structure to allow the motion the "speed" which we observe as the "software" would not exist.

It is all our brain in motion. Just like our visual cortex and cerebellum and neurons are classified as being different parts/ Just like an engine of a car and wheels and steering wheels. The car will not function if it is damaged beyond repair and will not speed.

(October 8, 2013 at 8:42 pm)whateverist Wrote: You accept that emergence is a real phenomenon within complex systems. Since the brain is one of the most complex things we know of, why would you not expect emergent properties to arise from it?

The brain does exhibit many and wonderous properties as a result of its complexity. Most of these would be classified as functions, one of the types of emergent properties I included in my list. In my opinion, when you call something a function you group togethor a set of physical processes and give it a name. That's just semantics.

Apo, touche. But for the record I don't take Dennett groupies seriously either. ;-)

(October 8, 2013 at 9:31 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 8:42 pm)whateverist Wrote: You accept that emergence is a real phenomenon within complex systems. Since the brain is one of the most complex things we know of, why would you not expect emergent properties to arise from it?

The brain does exhibit many and wonderous properties as a result of its complexity. Most of these would be classified as functions, one of the types of emergent properties I included in my list. In my opinion, when you call something a function you group togethor a set of physical processes and give it a name. That's just semantics.

Apo, touche. But for the record I don't take Dennett groupies seriously either. ;-)

You still can not come back to life after you are dead and you still ARE only a physical body in motion.

(October 8, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 3:26 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Blah blah blah blah blah philosophy blah blah blah blah.

Christians are so pathetic. They can't interact in the real world of science so they hide in the only place they can, philosophy.

The practice of philosophy through the ages has, in my opinion, been mostly about weasling out of admitting that one is weak and sees only what wishes to see and believes only what one wishes to believe, and is therefore of little real value to be listened to.

(October 8, 2013 at 2:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: NDE’s exemplify mental activity in the absence of a functioning brain. Some of these have been very well documented. It seems the only reason for dismissing them is because they do not fit the current materialist paradigm. There is also the strange case of John Lorber. Lorber had a measured IQ of 126, yet CAT scans revealed that he had only 10% of normal brain volume. Sure he still had a brain, but not much of one.

Wrong. Dr. Lorber was the DOCTOR. His cases were never published, or peer reviewed, including your's, which has been perfectly explained.
http://cogsci.stackexchange.com/question...s-been-fur

There are many instances of "savants".
Your examples ALL have at least partially functioning brains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome

NDE's have also been explained. There is no instance of mental activity, in the absence of a brain.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/08/...xperiences

(October 8, 2013 at 9:41 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(October 8, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Christians are so pathetic. They can't interact in the real world of science so they hide in the only place they can, philosophy.

The practice of philosophy through the ages has, in my opinion, been mostly about weasling out of admitting that one is weak and sees only what wishes to see and believes only what one wishes to believe, and is therefore of little real value to be listened to.

Agreed,

I am not against brianstorming, I am against philosophy because it is a religion. Science is a tool, not a religion. When it gets proven wrong, it is rightfully discarded. When it grows, the tool gets improved upon.