Mind is the brain?

[bennyboy]

You can correlate two observable properties.  Mind is not observable.

And you've decided that mind isn't observable!? Who are you? God to make that decision for all of humanity??

Nope. Just a guy who knows what the word means.

So while you disparage that I claim that mind is something that can be measured, you make the presumptuous assumption from the get go that mind isn't observable, therefore cannot be studied. But there are many things in science that are not observable - electrons to name one out of hundreds. So in other words, you are closing any discussion by saying, "Never mind guys, you're wasting your time. Mind cannot be observed in any way, shape or form." Wow.

The difference is that electrons, dark matter, gravity, etc. are all theories about things that you can't see that are best fits. Those theories were made in an attempt to explain the unknown behind the observable. In the case of mind, the reverse is true: observations were made to "fit" with what everybody already knows: the reality of mind. The problem is that mind isn't really required to explain any of the things you are studying as mind. I mean-- smiles? Data processing? Hugs from mom? These are all completely explained by physics, are they not? So why even bother talking about "mind"?

What will you say if androids become self-aware, that God did it?? Or if we discover that there are thousands of aliens throughout the galaxy who are self-aware, that God did that too??

eh? Why are you talking about God?

All caps don't add truth.  Nor has science proven itself up to the task of answering philosophical questions about things which aren't objectively observable.  In short, you haven't established that you are even experimenting on what you say you're experimenting on.

It isn't open to science because you've closed your mind to that. Fortunately, thousands of scientists don't agree with you.

Millions of scientists don't agree with me, if you include university students, neurobiologists and modern psychologists. But there is a pattern-- they have all made the philosophical assumptions required to substitute supposed correlates for mind with the actual fact of mind. Anyway, I'm not sure why, in a philosophy thread, you'd want to appeal to a population, or to an authority, and choose scientists-- scientists are notoriously incapable of answering philosophical questions, because science isn't the right tool for that job.

What if someone decided that since God can't be directly observed, he would take what everyone "knows" is God-- feelings of inspiration-- as a correlate.  Then every time someone said they felt inspired, he'd claim he was studying the Lord.  Dumb right?  Because God can't be shown even to exist, isn't it?

But inadvertently that's what you're claiming: Someone says that God is unobservable (dumb, according to you); you say mind is unobservable (that's also dump, according to me  ).

eh?
I'm saying that both God and mind are equally unobservable, and required to explain the same percentage of what happens in the universe: 0%. The difference is that some people "know" there's mind, and others "know" there's God. In neither case is there a process of observation by which one finds God or mind as a best fit for observations. In both cases, since the thing is already believed to be known, the believer makes up correlates to stand in lieu of the ability to directly observe either God or mind. In both cases, the operational definitions that they will choose necessarily beg the question. As soon as you say "mind is brain," and start studying the brain as though it's mind, you've begged the question. As soon as you say, "God is love," and start studying the effects of love on the world, you've begged the question.