Mind is the brain?

[The Grand Nudger]

I never said your idea wasn't simple.  I said it wasn't detailed, and that you hadn't provided any specifics.  To be frank, right now it seems a little woo as you've explained it.

You said you'd never seen a simple thesis statement, which was fiction before I repeated what I've told you countless times before.  You have.  Now you say I haven't given you a detailed description, which is equally fictive...we've had -many- detailed conversations on the subject in which I've been specific enough to denote the differences between a calculator and a computer, let alone a photon and a computer, even gone so far as to explain -how- specific computational architectures do work.  Saying it "seems woo" is no different than saying it "seems circular".  Be explicit.  What about a computer, to you, seems "woo".  

I didn't say mind supervenes on complexity alone.  I said that complex minds supervene on complex coordination of elemental "atomic" parts, rather than supervening whole-scale on systems that hit a magical (and arbitrary) level of coordination.

That -is- all you referenced. Yet again, "not even wrong" and still insufficient.  Pile up a bunch of coordinated elemental atomic parts and you will still see no evidence of mind...and it still won't be comp. A pile of dirt fits that description..and it appears to posses neither mind nor comp ability. I'm not talking about magic, I'm talking about comp systems and mind, so what's the relevance?

Let me ask you, what is the relationship of a table to a QM particle?  At what point does a collection of QM particles become a "table."  There isn't one-- it's arbitrary.  And this is my view (at least if we're assuming a physical monism) of mind: that it is essential rather than supervenient.  What we call mind-- thinking about Mom, choosing food in the supermarket, etc. is to that elemental principle of mind what a table is to that elemental nature of a QM particle.

How many times have you asked..and I answered...this very line of questioning in every form you've dreamt up for it?  I stopped counting.  The collection "becomes" a table when the collection fits the definition of a table.  It's not either/or.  It's both.  The issue you stick on is simply one of scale, not identity. Go knock on your table, it doesn;t cease to exist because it also happens to be a collection of particles (qm or otherwise)...and it's not like you didn't know this before I said it, now.

Your view and mind aren't that different except for one thing: you see mind as a coordination of systems, without having any explanation of what principle unifies those systems into a single entity.  I see mind as intrinsic to matter at the most elemental level, with no magicspecial arbitrary "cut line" at which we will say, "There was no mind, and now, there IS mind."

The explanation of principle is -exactly- what CTM is - and whether they are or aren't a single entity, in actuality, and referent to different metrics, is irrelevant.  Comp systems leverage comp principles.  If our mind is not leveraging comp principle, it's not a comp mind. Why do you keep talking about magic? You say you see mind as intrinsic to matter at the most elemental level, and yet the position is not, at all, in evidence. How do you see that, exactly?

Do you think that an hourglass is a mind? Do you think that a leaf is a mind? These things have matter (lots of it), one of them is so complex that we don't understand exactly how it does what it does. Are either of them minds...which one?