The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[Brian37]

"Mind" is a word and a bullshit woo word that implies there is something separate from the brain and makes magic out of about mundane organ functions.

You also have to have a brain to make up a word, like snarfwidget, or googgoledgop, but the ability to make shit up is hardly impressive.

Saying "There is no mind" only requires a brain to think with, just like saying there is no god doesn't require a god to believe in.

Now others in this thread have made the argument and no one has refuted it. If one's brains get scrambled by a bullet, or if one's head gets decapitated the the structure is no longer in tact to manifest the display of outward expression you falsely call "mind". There is only the brain and the brain in motion, there is no such thing as a "mind".

I am sorry if that is not sexy enough.

What is so scary about merely being a product of evolution? The brain is an amazing organ and there certainly are lots of interesting historical figures and interesting people in the world today, but I am not going to pretend that "me" is something special outside my own material brain.

I am a product of evolution, genetics, chemical makeup, information input and my brain in motion, but that is it.

You are fuck all nuts. I went out of my way to explain to the author of the OP how emergence theory didn't work, pointing out that a proponent of strong emergent theory still holds a monist position. No reasonable person, saving you of course, thinks that the mind exists outside the brain as a mere woo word.

Are you mad that I used a definition you posted to point out that there is no part of the brain that is NOT material?

All I added was skip that archaic word, as a suggestion, and simply say the the sum of all the parts of the brain that we call "I" and you needlessly call "mind" is the product of the ENTIRE brain in motion.

"Me", "I" is an outcome of evolution, genetics, brain chemistry, and life input with the output of expression.

Maybe this will help you, I am trying to throw you a bone and explain WHY it is not a good idea to use that word.

When you look at all the other non medical definitions of "mind" just like the word "theory" you always have some layman dip shit twisting the word. There are, not you, not me, but people WHO DO think the "mind" is a magical entity that can be physically separated from the brain, "spirit".

I really wish scientists would do a better job, like they do when they give animals and medical conditions unique foreign words of making it so distinct it cannot be confused with the bullshit woo lay people often twist.

For the same reason I don't like the word "philosophy". Why do you need a word like that that laymen attach with so much baggage when all you have to do is say "From long term tested observations this pattern seems to be the most solid and this seems to be what we should go with". Takes longer to say, sure, but doesn't give the laymen a chance to fuck it up.

I know why the word "mind" is used, and if people looked at it like that definition, I would have less of a problem with it. But you give a theist an inch and they take it to woo.

I really think this is arguing semantics. If both you and I agree that there is nothing outside the brain and "I' cannot be separated from the brain, then what we are merely arguing is how words and what words should be used.

My point is to avoid giving ammo to dip shits who want to take nature and turn it into a magic show.