Mind is the brain?

[The Grand Nudger]

Composition is an important part of function.  You might think that mind is just input, processing and output.  But the way things are processed is very important.  Obviously, brains and computers process differently in very many ways.

The importance of composition to function is only that the composition be -capable- of function.  All adders are adders and equate to each other as adders no matter what they are made of.   Your "just" is diminutive and defensive, whereas I see nothing diminishing about input, processing, and output.  Regardless of how mind is accomplished, it's still mind - and all of the wonderful things I love about mind. The way things are processed is -not- important to any conversation where we are considering whether or not mind is processing.  Two different computational architectures process things the -same- way using different materials and arrangement to achieve function, this difference is unimportant to any discussion of whether or not the two systems are comp systems.  A comp made of silicon, a comp made of vac tubes, and a comp made of biota would be different in many ways, but the one way they -wouldn't- be different, is in being comp systems.  The same would hold for minds made of x, y, or z, if mind were comp. This is -why- your objections have consistently fallen to a relevance fallacy in responding to me.

It's not as though I think that a machine mind and a biota mind wouldn't be different. The composition of a system tells you what each will be better or worse at than another, by whatever metrics you choose, and why. I've expressed as much in this thread and every thread we've had the conversation in, I'm suggesting that for all their differences, the one thing that wouldn't be different, is that they are minds. If mind is comp, the suggestion ceases to be suggestion and becomes a statement of computational principle. Frankly, the differences between brains and modern pcs are fascinating..and I (and most computer scientists and engineers) are looking to the brain to make a better pc. It's working. One of my favorite examples is the chemical portion of the electro-chemical process in our brains. Any resistence based computer (modern pc) made at the scale of architecture of the brain would melt itself. A chemical computer could run colder, and thus the "board" could be made more dense. On the flipside, chemical gates suffer from signal isolation problems, making their process "dirtier" and also ever so slightly slower. A choice is made between accuracy and speed, or density and thus computational ability 1 for 1. Obviously if the difference in density is great enough, and parrallel processing is ongoing, the denser board will provide a more robust function despite it's limitations at the level of gate construction. It will still have strange problems with accuracy, with signal mixing, with memory. Mull that over, and consider your mind in that context...and perhaps you'll see why I find comp to be such a useful way to consider mind, and yes..even qualia. It would be useful even if mind were the special sauce, "in there" somewhere, somehow..and not the input, processing, and output.

Mind is not all the brain, for sure.  Therefore, if there's mind and it is brain function, it's in the brain.

Your premise appears to be false by all available evidence, and your therefore is a complete non-sequitur regardless.  

You keep telling me that a unified agency isn't a thing.  Then I watch a movie, and realize that something is bringing together sound and light into an interesting experience.  It's that unity that you have no answer for.

I keep telling you it doesn't happen in one place.  Your experience appears to be parallel processing rather than serial processing. Don't like it?  Take it up with the brain, but don't pretend no ones answered your question.