Mind is the brain?

[bennyboy]

I bring up the question of God because it is at the root of your problem. You want to believe that mind is more than brain activities, that it has some other quality - called immaterial, or spiritual, whatever "flavor of the month" word, and in that belief,  it cannot be observed, and so that leaves you just enough space for you to believe in God, who would be of the same essence of the mind- spiritual, immaterial, whatever.  Your concept of the "mind" is what religious people have called for centuries  the "soul", the non-physical thing that will survive after death. So argue all you want, Benny, but you are fooling yourself by trying relentlessly to deny that mind is just brain activity. Just acknowledge that you want to believe in God. Why all the obfuscation? Come out of the closet, and be honest, not particularly with me, but with yourself.

My concept of mind is that it is the subjective experience of ideas and perceptions: this has nothing to do with any current or traditional view of soul. I think your strawman is also a bit of an ad hom, but I'm not sure why you are going there. If this is how you want to communicate, though, I'll choose not to.

[bennyboy]

Nor has science proven itself up to the task of answering philosophical questions about things which aren't objectively observable.

Your problem is that mental activity -- i.e., mind -- has been observed, via MRI experiments which, uh, correlate areas of the brain with specific cognitive processes.

As to value of answering "philosophical" questions about things which aren't objectively observable, if you want to count the angels dancing on the head of a pin, go right ahead. You will still need to convince me, and no doubt others, of the value of your obscure musings.

Brain activity is measured with MRI experiments.  Mind is not.  If you equate the two, then the question has been officially begged.

[Brian37]

Your problem is that mental activity -- i.e., mind -- has been observed, via MRI experiments which, uh, correlate areas of the brain with specific cognitive processes.

As to value of answering "philosophical" questions about things which aren't objectively observable, if you want to count the angels dancing on the head of a pin, go right ahead. You will still need to convince me, and no doubt others, of the value of your obscure musings.

Brain activity is measured with MRI experiments.  Mind is not.  If you equate the two, then the question has been officially begged.

That is like saying  the number 1 is separate from the 1 apple on the table. No, there is just the apple. Our thoughts are the abstraction that arises out of the material process. You really are nothing more than your brain in motion.

"Mind" is the number 1 and the brain is the apple. "Mind"  is how we describe what we observe when we communicate with others. 

I get tired of even atheists trying to think there is more to life than than this. Psychology, psychiatry, evolutionary biology, neurology an modern medical tools are what explain how our brain works and how humans behave. 

"Mind" is only a an abstract word that describes what we observe when others communicate with us. 

Like "That car is going 55 miles an hour" isn't describing the physical car, but the car in motion.

[bennyboy]

That is like saying  the number 1 is separate from the 1 apple on the table. No, there is just the apple. Our thoughts are the abstraction that arises out of the material process. You really are nothing more than your brain in motion.

You are making a lot of positive assertions. You are clearly confident that you know what's what. However, saying something and being able to demonstrate its truth are not the same thing.

"Mind" is only a an abstract word that describes what we observe when others communicate with us. 

No, it's totally not that. Mind is the experience of thoughts and perceptions.

[little_monkey]

I bring up the question of God because it is at the root of your problem. You want to believe that mind is more than brain activities, that it has some other quality - called immaterial, or spiritual, whatever "flavor of the month" word, and in that belief,  it cannot be observed, and so that leaves you just enough space for you to believe in God, who would be of the same essence of the mind- spiritual, immaterial, whatever.  Your concept of the "mind" is what religious people have called for centuries  the "soul", the non-physical thing that will survive after death. So argue all you want, Benny, but you are fooling yourself by trying relentlessly to deny that mind is just brain activity. Just acknowledge that you want to believe in God. Why all the obfuscation? Come out of the closet, and be honest, not particularly with me, but with yourself.

My concept of mind is that it is the subjective experience of ideas and perceptions: this has nothing to do with any current or traditional view of soul.  I think your strawman is also a bit of an ad hom, but I'm not sure why you are going there.  If this is how you want to communicate, though, I'll choose not to.

I'm trying to have an honest conversation, why would I want to attack you? I have no interest in ad hom. I'm just carrying your words to its logical conclusion. That might be brutal, but better than self-deception in my estimation. 

If you define mind as you have, which is your definition, and many people will take exception with that definition, then you have a concept that has of little use - from my pov. "Subjective" experience can mean anything and nothing at all. Here's what I mean with a single example: Do trees experience love? You can talk about this endlessly without ever coming to a conclusion. Only because it can never be inquired with empirical methods. In my vocabulary, it's called a crackpot theory. And here's my definition of a crackpot theory: if your theory cannot be distinguished from a crackpot theory, then it is a crackpot theory. And what distinguish a good theory which describes the real world from a crackpot theory? A good theory is one that is supported by objective, verifiable evidence. So there you have my theory of crackpot theories. If you ever used this, I insist that you give me credit for it. I have absolute royalty rights on this theory...

[Brian37]

That is like saying  the number 1 is separate from the 1 apple on the table. No, there is just the apple. Our thoughts are the abstraction that arises out of the material process. You really are nothing more than your brain in motion.

You are making a lot of positive assertions.  You are clearly confident that you know what's what.  However, saying something and being able to demonstrate its truth are not the same thing.

"Mind" is only a an abstract word that describes what we observe when others communicate with us. 

No, it's totally not that.  Mind is the experience of thoughts and perceptions.

You are pulling the same tactic theists do in trying to shift the burden of proof.

I do not claim the mind exists separate from the brain, you are the one making the positive assertion, not me. Not up to me to do your homework for you.


Me, "Allah does not exist"

You, "You just made a positive assertion"

Me, "No, our best data today says humans make up gods"

You, "Prove that Allah doesn't exist".

NOW what you are doing is the same shifting the burden of proof with the word "mind".

All I did was tell you that our best scientific to date says your brain is it. 

Now if you think there is something scientifically proven called a "mind" and not simply an abstract word, be my guest, go conduct your experiments, have them independently peer reviewed and collect your Nobel Prize and patient. I am not treating you any differently than I would any old book believer.

We are not separate from our bodies. We know this medically because when our brains get damaged or dies, we have not found anything indicating two separate physical things. If you are going to claim the mind is not physical, then all it can be is an abstract word describing our brains in motion.

Not up to me to do your homework for you.

[bennyboy]

I'm trying to have an honest conversation, why would I want to attack you? I have no interest in ad hom. I'm just carrying your words to its logical conclusion. That might be brutal, but better than self-deception in my estimation. 

If you define mind as you have, which is your definition, and many people will take exception with that definition, then you have a concept that has of little use - from my pov. "Subjective" experience can mean anything and nothing at all. Here's what I mean with a single example: Do trees experience love? You can talk about this endlessly without ever coming to a conclusion. Only because it can never be inquired with empirical methods. In my vocabulary, it's called a crackpot theory. And here's my definition of a crackpot theory: if your theory cannot be distinguished from a crackpot theory, then it is a crackpot theory. And what distinguish a good theory which describes the real world from a crackpot theory? A good theory is one that is supported by objective, verifiable evidence. So there you have my theory of crackpot theories. If you ever used this, I insist that you give me credit for it. I have absolute royalty rights on this theory...

Mind as the experience of ideas and perceptions? Yeah, I must be crazy. Who'd describe mind like that?

Oh yeah. . . almost everybody. All us non-scientist bumpkins, with our crazy ideas like the importance of human experience. When will we learn?

[bennyboy]

You are pulling the same tactic theists do in trying to shift the burden of proof.

I do not claim the mind exists separate from the brain, you are the one making the positive assertion, not me.

Bullshit I made that claim. I'd accuse you of lying, but I think it's more likely that you simply haven't bothered to read the thread, and would rather argue against what you want me to have said than what I actually have.

Me, "Allah does not exist"

You, "You just made a positive assertion"

Me, "No, our best data today says humans make up gods"

You, "Prove that Allah doesn't exist".

lolwut? You are debating with the voices in your head, I think.

[Angrboda]

"Mind" is only a an abstract word that describes what we observe when others communicate with us. 

No, it's totally not that.  Mind is the experience of thoughts and perceptions.

Now you're just shifting the goalposts. Mind includes both conscious and subconscious activity. Is PTSD a fault in the mind, or is it a fault in the brain? We can identify PTSD by mental components of it as experienced by sufferers, and we can identify it with MEG scans. The gulf between what goes on in the mind and identifying it with what goes on in the brain is not so wide as you imagine. We can correlate specific mental artifacts of trauma with specific physical effects of trauma. Your point only applies if you restrict mind to an arbitrary part of mind which hasn't been mapped by a correlation with injury. (With one exception. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2...-in-brain/ ) With you it's all about qualia. Qualia aren't the beginning and ending of mind; there is a whole array of mental phenomenon that has been mapped. You just choose to ignore it in favor of your sacred cow.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6j8rd093RI

http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...nications/

[little_monkey]

I'm trying to have an honest conversation, why would I want to attack you? I have no interest in ad hom. I'm just carrying your words to its logical conclusion. That might be brutal, but better than self-deception in my estimation. 

If you define mind as you have, which is your definition, and many people will take exception with that definition, then you have a concept that has of little use - from my pov. "Subjective" experience can mean anything and nothing at all. Here's what I mean with a single example: Do trees experience love? You can talk about this endlessly without ever coming to a conclusion. Only because it can never be inquired with empirical methods. In my vocabulary, it's called a crackpot theory. And here's my definition of a crackpot theory: if your theory cannot be distinguished from a crackpot theory, then it is a crackpot theory. And what distinguish a good theory which describes the real world from a crackpot theory? A good theory is one that is supported by objective, verifiable evidence. So there you have my theory of crackpot theories. If you ever used this, I insist that you give me credit for it. I have absolute royalty rights on this theory...

Mind as the experience of ideas and perceptions?  Yeah, I must be crazy.  Who'd describe mind like that?

Oh yeah. . . almost everybody.  All us non-scientist bumpkins, with our crazy ideas like the importance of human experience.  When will we learn?

You should be thankful there are people like me and others who are willing to help you out and show the way to better enlightenment...