Mind is the brain?

[The Grand Nudger]

Too much metacommentary about me, and too few actual ideas.

There's no requirement that I present you with any ideas.  Your objections are rationalizations.  I don't have to tell you how -anything- actually works to establish that.

Look, dude, either you have an exact explanation, or you believe mind is "in there, somewhere."  Something about the brain allows for a subjective agent capable of experiencing qualia, no?  So whatever qualia are, you believe they are in/of the brain, despite a poor understanding of exactly how that works.  Am I right or am I right?  (Don't answer that, I already know the answer)

If you already knew you were wrong, why present a counterfactual proposition as though it were my own?  I think that mind -is- brain.  Not in brain or of brain.  Is brain.  I think that brain, is comp.

So my question is this: what ABOUT the brain, exactly allows for qualia?  It's a reasonable and important question. 

Sure, but a failure to answer it, or answer it to your satisfaction, won't help you to establish the validity or importance of your objections regarding any specific attempt.

There are some things which are unique to the brain, some which are unique to specific systems which process data in certain ways, and some things which involve the simple transmission of energy along routes.  There are many many layers of function going on in the brain, and it's important for us to find out which of these allow for qualia.  All I've done in this thread so far is to list some of the levels of processing that can be observed in the brain.  There's nothing anti-science or anti-logic about that.

Are there...which things are unique to the brain?  In any case, data processing or comp is -not- specific to any specific architecture..it is -itself- a system of abstraction.  That's why we called computers "universal machines".  It's entirely conceivable that the underlying architecture of qualia is a series of logical propositions very literally made out of biota which could in one instance calculate numbers, and in another, experience.  That's why comp or data processing is so useful in the first place. There are different ways of realizing the same principles, different material compositions and structures that achieve, for example, a full adder in different ways...but the reason they all work is that each system equates to any other -as- a full adder...regardless of what it is made of or the arrangement of it's parts. This tiny comment here betrays a vast misunderstanding of comp and processing..both in principle and in practice. Buttressing those objections you've made with mistakes isn't likely to produce knowledge.

Your objections are illogical, and anti-science.  But go ahead and change the subject of my comments in your response again, and again, and again.

 We already know that comp is capable of providing the contents of your qualia...everytime you and I LOL together a machine is putting you into a fantasy world where little girls drop flaming bears on peoples heads. Human qualia can interface with machine language in ways that human qualia can;t even interface with other human qualia. All you need is a little translation and your screen is capable of transmitting a message to you in ways that I simply cannot. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. I mention this in response to your postulate up above. Your qualia is -already- taking up residence in that machine...it reduces at least on some level, to the state of digital levers. If you weren;t provided with those zeros and ones, and a translation for interface, you would not have that qualia. I think it;s going to be awhile before we can match the scale of architecture in the brain, but if or when we do..as a hypothetical, it would take a hefty amount of special pleading to imagine that an arrangement which is -already- ongoing would somehow stop or cease..particularly in that we imagine, in the hypothetical, a machine that's much better at doing what machines already, demonstrably, do.