The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[Brian37]

"Mind" is a word and a bullshit woo word that implies there is something separate from the brain and makes magic out of about mundane organ functions.

You also have to have a brain to make up a word, like snarfwidget, or googgoledgop, but the ability to make shit up is hardly impressive.

Saying "There is no mind" only requires a brain to think with, just like saying there is no god doesn't require a god to believe in.

Now others in this thread have made the argument and no one has refuted it. If one's brains get scrambled by a bullet, or if one's head gets decapitated the the structure is no longer in tact to manifest the display of outward expression you falsely call "mind". There is only the brain and the brain in motion, there is no such thing as a "mind".

I am sorry if that is not sexy enough.

What is so scary about merely being a product of evolution? The brain is an amazing organ and there certainly are lots of interesting historical figures and interesting people in the world today, but I am not going to pretend that "me" is something special outside my own material brain.

I am a product of evolution, genetics, chemical makeup, information input and my brain in motion, but that is it.

You are fuck all nuts. I went out of my way to explain to the author of the OP how emergence theory didn't work, pointing out that a proponent of strong emergent theory still holds a monist position. No reasonable person, saving you of course, thinks that the mind exists outside the brain as a mere woo word.

Are you mad that I used a definition you posted to point out that there is no part of the brain that is NOT material?

All I added was skip that archaic word, as a suggestion, and simply say the the sum of all the parts of the brain that we call "I" and you needlessly call "mind" is the product of the ENTIRE brain in motion.

"Me", "I" is an outcome of evolution, genetics, brain chemistry, and life input with the output of expression.

Maybe this will help you, I am trying to throw you a bone and explain WHY it is not a good idea to use that word.

When you look at all the other non medical definitions of "mind" just like the word "theory" you always have some layman dip shit twisting the word. There are, not you, not me, but people WHO DO think the "mind" is a magical entity that can be physically separated from the brain, "spirit".

I really wish scientists would do a better job, like they do when they give animals and medical conditions unique foreign words of making it so distinct it cannot be confused with the bullshit woo lay people often twist.

For the same reason I don't like the word "philosophy". Why do you need a word like that that laymen attach with so much baggage when all you have to do is say "From long term tested observations this pattern seems to be the most solid and this seems to be what we should go with". Takes longer to say, sure, but doesn't give the laymen a chance to fuck it up.

I know why the word "mind" is used, and if people looked at it like that definition, I would have less of a problem with it. But you give a theist an inch and they take it to woo.

I really think this is arguing semantics. If both you and I agree that there is nothing outside the brain and "I' cannot be separated from the brain, then what we are merely arguing is how words and what words should be used.

My point is to avoid giving ammo to dip shits who want to take nature and turn it into a magic show.

[Whateverist]

You are fuck all nuts. I went out of my way to explain to the author of the OP how emergence theory didn't work, pointing out that a proponent of strong emergent theory still holds a monist position. No reasonable person, saving you of course, thinks that the mind exists outside the brain as a mere woo word.

Are you mad that I used a definition you posted to point out that there is no part of the brain that is NOT material?

All I added was skip that archaic word, as a suggestion, and simply say the the sum of all the parts of the brain that we call "I" and you needlessly call "mind" is the product of the ENTIRE brain in motion.

"Me", "I" is an outcome of evolution, genetics, brain chemistry, and life input with the output of expression.

Maybe this will help you, I am trying to throw you a bone and explain WHY it is not a good idea to use that word.

When you look at all the other non medical definitions of "mind" just like the word "theory" you always have some layman dip shit twisting the word. There are, not you, not me, but people WHO DO think the "mind" is a magical entity that can be physically separated from the brain, "spirit".

I really wish scientists would do a better job, like they do when they give animals and medical conditions unique foreign words of making it so distinct it cannot be confused with the bullshit woo lay people often twist.

For the same reason I don't like the word "philosophy". Why do you need a word like that that laymen attach with so much baggage when all you have to do is say "From long term tested observations this pattern seems to be the most solid and this seems to be what we should go with". Takes longer to say, sure, but doesn't give the laymen a chance to fuck it up.

I know why the word "mind" is used, and if people looked at it like that definition, I would have less of a problem with it. But you give a theist an inch and they take it to woo.

I really think this is arguing semantics. If both you and I agree that there is nothing outside the brain and "I' cannot be separated from the brain, then what we are merely arguing is how words and what words should be used.

My point is to avoid giving ammo to dip shits who want to take nature and turn it into a magic show.

Attempting to win an argument by redefining words, besides being loathsome when the other side does it, just doesn't work. The appeal of ideas about gods or other woo matters rarely resides in a particular word. The end effect seems to make you look foolish while anyone nursing a woo idea just looks at you with deserved suspicion since you don't argue honestly. Defining away the opposition is at best a way of rationalizing for yourself how so many people can be wrong. Since it doesn't begin to touch why people are drawn to woo, why should they listen to you?

[Brian37]

Are you mad that I used a definition you posted to point out that there is no part of the brain that is NOT material?

All I added was skip that archaic word, as a suggestion, and simply say the the sum of all the parts of the brain that we call "I" and you needlessly call "mind" is the product of the ENTIRE brain in motion.

"Me", "I" is an outcome of evolution, genetics, brain chemistry, and life input with the output of expression.

Maybe this will help you, I am trying to throw you a bone and explain WHY it is not a good idea to use that word.

When you look at all the other non medical definitions of "mind" just like the word "theory" you always have some layman dip shit twisting the word. There are, not you, not me, but people WHO DO think the "mind" is a magical entity that can be physically separated from the brain, "spirit".

I really wish scientists would do a better job, like they do when they give animals and medical conditions unique foreign words of making it so distinct it cannot be confused with the bullshit woo lay people often twist.

For the same reason I don't like the word "philosophy". Why do you need a word like that that laymen attach with so much baggage when all you have to do is say "From long term tested observations this pattern seems to be the most solid and this seems to be what we should go with". Takes longer to say, sure, but doesn't give the laymen a chance to fuck it up.

I know why the word "mind" is used, and if people looked at it like that definition, I would have less of a problem with it. But you give a theist an inch and they take it to woo.

I really think this is arguing semantics. If both you and I agree that there is nothing outside the brain and "I' cannot be separated from the brain, then what we are merely arguing is how words and what words should be used.

My point is to avoid giving ammo to dip shits who want to take nature and turn it into a magic show.

Attempting to win an argument by redefining words, besides being loathsome when the other side does it, just doesn't work. The appeal of ideas about gods or other woo matters rarely resides in a particular word. The end effect seems to make you look foolish while anyone nursing a woo idea just looks at you with deserved suspicion since you don't argue honestly. Defining away the opposition is at best a way of rationalizing for yourself how so many people can be wrong. Since it doesn't begin to touch why people are drawn to woo, why should they listen to you?

I think it is stupid to insist on tradition always. If evolution were static it wouldn't occur, and if language didn't evolve our species would still be grunting and cuneiform writting wouldn't have been invented and Latin wouldn't have evolved into the multiple languages it has today. And if we never invented new words we wouldn't change at all as a species.

If you want to argue that one topic and one word should not change, that is a better argument than using "never" as a blanket solution.

Again, more and more atheists are taking back the word "atheist" from it's long held and defined by theists as a stigma, and more and more atheists are accepting "agnostic" as being compatible with "atheist".

So to say it is never ok to redefine something is absurd, otherwise we would still be speaking old English which looks nothing like modern English.
Otherwise we would be stuck with Ancient Greek or Latin, if language didn't evolve.

"Gay" as a word started out as merely meaning "happy" and got re defined by bigots as a slur. If gays simply accepted the slur as a definition, they would be stuck with that slur.. But now more and more people see the word as a description of sexuality and not a negative moral judgement.

If evolution isn't stagnant why should language remain stagnant? Context does matter which is why absolutes in anything in life are not good solutions.

[Epimethean]

Actually, over twenty percent of modern true English words are directly from Old English.

[Anomalocaris]

PART OF NOT SEPARATE FROM, SO THE "MIND" is literally the brain. I simply skip the mind part and say that "we" are all the parts of the brain in motion.

You seem to have problems with useful conceptualizations such as "mind". Let me give you an example, your are attended by gaseous organic molecules you emit. No matter how much you would like to say the conceptusalization of "Body Oder" is obsolete, the concept it still quite an efficient way to describe what particular aspect of all that attends you offends. The same with mind.

[Whateverist]

I think it is stupid to insist on tradition always. If evolution were static it wouldn't occur, and if language didn't evolve our species would still be grunting and cuneiform writting wouldn't have been invented and Latin wouldn't have evolved into the multiple languages it has today. And if we never invented new words we wouldn't change at all as a species.

I certainly wasn't talking about the change of the language over time. That has nothing whatsoever to do with my point. I'm just saying it is weak to duck someone's argument you disagree with by re-defining the terms. Some would call that stupid. I'll just say it is weak.

If you want to argue that one topic and one word should not change, that is a better argument than using "never" as a blanket solution.

Again, more and more atheists are taking back the word "atheist" from it's long held and defined by theists as a stigma, and more and more atheists are accepting "agnostic" as being compatible with "atheist".

So to say it is never ok to redefine something is absurd, otherwise we would still be speaking old English which looks nothing like modern English.
Otherwise we would be stuck with Ancient Greek or Latin, if language didn't evolve.

You sure do rant for a long time saying not very much, but over and over. It doesn't hide the fact that you are injecting a red herring. No one is talking about language never changing. It is just the motivated changing of meanings in order to duck an honest argument that is weak if you know better but admittedly stupid if you can't tell the difference.

I just checked. Nothing else you say beyond this point does anything else but reiterate your red herring. Sadly no one is arguing the other side. If you really want to argue with something someone else has said, it is dishonest to argue something else altogether as if your being right about that had anything whatsoever to do with what is at issue. Can anyone else find anything in the rest of what he says below that doesn't just repeat his moronic: "there is nothing wrong with arguing against a point someone else is making about the mind/brain distinction by dismissing "mind" as a meaningless term .. because language changes all the time."

"Gay" as a word started out as merely meaning "happy" and got re defined by bigots as a slur. If gays simply accepted the slur as a definition, they would be stuck with that slur.. But now more and more people see the word as a description of sexuality and not a negative moral judgement.

If evolution isn't stagnant why should language remain stagnant? Context does matter which is why absolutes in anything in life are not good solutions.

[Brian37]

Actually, over twenty percent of modern true English words are directly from Old English.

That means the majority 80 percent we don't use. Funny how 99 percent of all species that have existed are now extinct.

All of our communications are a reflection of the quite simple, no matter what boarders or languages or labels we set up. They are projections of human evolution. They are human inventions that project mundane evolution. They project our culture and our tribalism and our desire for resources.

If there were a utopia. If there were only one path to success to everyone, even those outside our predilections, evolution would not occur, there would be no need for it. It would be the same bullshit unchanging garden of Eden myth.

It IS important to know our history, not as one nation, but as a species ESPECIALLY evolution. The more we do that, the more, as a species we will see that we are NOT different..

[Epimethean]

I'm not sure how that factors in with your suggestion we strike the words, "philosophy" and "mind," from the language, Brian.

[Brian37]

I know they exist I accept they exist, it is just that I get a fucking lip twitch when people with BRAINS don't see that when they use them you have a Jim Carry "Dumb and Dumber" crowed with a hard on who say "So you're saying there is a chance"

Most of scientific terminology I don't have a problem with because it is so far removed from the NASCAR bible thumper who has their remote stuck on Fux News they don't give a shit. But when you use words like "theory" and "Philosophy" these nuts jump on it like a Applewhite on applesauce.

[Epimethean]

How is using the word, "philosophy" evidence of idiocy? Bertrand Russell could out-think the lot of us here, and he used the term without compunction. On the subject of the word, "mind," Turing, Dennett and Hofstadter use it, and they are among the eminent-er, (brains) among us.