Mind is the brain?

[bennyboy]

So far I haven't gotten past the point of arguing computers into existence (ffs)...so there is no "therefore" for you to complain about.  If you want a therefore, we're going to have to agree that we're talking about something to begin with.  There's no point in me attempting to explain to you what a comp system can do, and how, so long as you maintain the notion that there is no such thing.  Non-existent things don't do anything, ofc.  How does that line up against your experience, btw.  Your pc non-existent?  Does it not-sit there doing nothing?  OFC it exists, and it does something.  You tell me that CTM needs detail, as though computation weren't already very detailed. The details are in commercial operation, a physical demonstration before your very eyes..... on your own desk.   Forgive me if I doubt that any detail I could add to the field would change your tune when your own hands on the keyboard won't.  

You are equivocating on the man-made object we call "computer" and on a philosophical principle of mind. Since the question at hand is exactly what about the brain allows for (or is, if you want it that way) mind, then you can't just wave at the whole "system," unless you are claiming that the entire system is mind. We've been through this already-- are veins mind? Cerebral fluid? Hormones?

See, the brain-waving is sufficient if you are trying to prove that the brain is the seat of mind, rather than say the heart or the balls. It isn't sufficient if you are trying to explain the fact of subjective awareness, and exactly what about the brain makes it possible.

I defined computers.............both those of our construction, and those that aren't.  I don't have an interest in defining mind.  I'd rather explain the "x" that has been defined -as- mind, so whats the relevance of this comment?

What you haven't done is explain why a system experiences what it's like to be a system-- comp or otherwise. You've been rambling for almost 30 pages about computers and "comp mind," and said nothing about the existence of qualia. So yeah, you've implicitly defined mind as function rather than experience. But unless you can draw a bridge to qualia, you are in fact just begging the question.