The Brain=Mind Fallacy

[liam]

I love how every whiny pussy who makes a big show of setting another account to ignore invariably spends the rest of their time reading every post from that account and usually responds to them as well, demonstrating for all the sort of immature crybabies they are.

"Ignore" is for Poseurs.

Despite your acceptable points there is something about your manner that smacks of nothing but offensiveness and discourtesy, by all means argue as you will but there is no need to stoop to unpleasant conduct. Surely there is no reason for you to go off as you just have, there are differences of opinion between you and other people but shouting your mouth off and insulting well-respected members is no way to gain the respect or acceptance of others on this forum and, believe me, you'd be even better off to avoid doing so in reality.

While you may have been on the side that had the most accepted explanation do not feel that it gives you the right to step further than is necessary in your refutation, if you disagree with an idea, dispute that but never act so as to disrespect the proponents of that idea.

---

On the actual subject matter of this thread, I'd like to refute the materialistic approach simply by saying two things:
-The brain may exist where the mind does not, this is a necessary belief for anyone who believes in human superiority and/or the status of humanity as the exclusive rational animal. Thus the mind is not necessarily linked to the brain as we would see some forms of development such as those experienced in humanity in animals such as the elephant, whale or bottle-nose dolphin as they all have larger cranial capacities than humans.
-The existence of the cogito must be and the consciousness of man cannot be fully explained by the materialistic explanation of the human brain, while there are stark similarities between the brain and mind (seen in lobotomy etc) we cannot assume that this is deductive evidence for the mind as there is a possibility that the brain simply provides for the functionalist view of the mind. This would fall foul of the chinese room effect and so the mentally damaged may not be examples of the a loss of mind but rather a loss of the capacity to express the consciousness as a healthy person would.

anyhow, thats my two-penneth, perhaps I am completely wrong. Hopefully if that is so I will receive more courteous treatment than others in this thread

[Brian37]

Thus the mind is not necessarily linked to the brain

Yet to this day you wont find when the challenge is made to blow your own brains out to test that claim, any sane person to attempt it. I don't recommend anyone do that.

THERE IS NO MIND, there are just outcomes of motion which people call "mind". Just like speed is an outcome of the motion of a car.

[liam]

Yet to this day you wont find when the challenge is made to blow your own brains out to test that claim, any sane person to attempt it. I don't recommend anyone do that.

THERE IS NO MIND, there are just outcomes of motion which people call "mind". Just like speed is an outcome of the motion of a car.

Yet if you shoot your own heart out then you will also lose all your mind's functions, the brain is not the only crucial part of the mind's existence.

The existence of it as a by-product of the brain's processes is more understandable but there would still be a mind, as you say it is the same as speed, speed still exists.

But surely there can thus be no consciousness if there is no mind, is that the point you are making? if not then i'd like you to elaborate, if that is not too much trouble

[Anomalocaris]

Perhaps the close correlation between observable loss of parts of what is colloquially termed mind, and the defect or removal of particular parts of the brain, offers a much stronger evidence that whatever mind is, its features are tightly coupled with the features of the physical brain.

There is as yet no correlation that suggest some parts of mind can exist independently of the total destruction of the brain.

[Brian37]

Yet if you shoot your own heart out then you will also lose all your mind's functions,

No, you will lose your body functions, just like if your car runs out of gas you cannot speed. You lose the ability to the motion.

We both agree that death exists. Where the woo morons go wrong is that they think nature can be bypassed by stupid words like "mind" like as if you could drive the same car and speed after you totaled it.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

Yet to this day you wont find when the challenge is made to blow your own brains out to test that claim, any sane person to attempt it. I don't recommend anyone do that.

THERE IS NO MIND, there are just outcomes of motion which people call "mind". Just like speed is an outcome of the motion of a car.

Yet if you shoot your own heart out then you will also lose all your mind's functions, the brain is not the only crucial part of the mind's existence.

The existence of it as a by-product of the brain's processes is more understandable but there would still be a mind, as you say it is the same as speed, speed still exists.

But surely there can thus be no consciousness if there is no mind, is that the point you are making? if not then i'd like you to elaborate, if that is not too much trouble

There are living people walking around without their hearts. Your heart can be completely removed and thrown to dogs to be eaten and you can live for decades without it, with a simple pump in its place.

Try that with your brain.

[Brian37]

But surely there can thus be no consciousness if there is no mind

CONSCIOUSNESS IS AN OUTCOME NOT A "MIND".

Get rid of that bullshit word!

THERE IS NO MIND! IT IS A STUPID FUCKING WORD!

It is merely the attempt on the part of the ignorant to treat speed as a thing separate from the car. Speed is an observation of the car in motion.

---

Yet if you shoot your own heart out then you will also lose all your mind's functions, the brain is not the only crucial part of the mind's existence.

The existence of it as a by-product of the brain's processes is more understandable but there would still be a mind, as you say it is the same as speed, speed still exists.

But surely there can thus be no consciousness if there is no mind, is that the point you are making? if not then i'd like you to elaborate, if that is not too much trouble

There are living people walking around without their hearts. Your heart can be completely removed and thrown to dogs to be eaten and you can live for decades without it, with a simple pump in its place.

Try that with your brain.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? Brains produce the outcome of thoughts, hearts pump blood. The heart is not the organ that produces thought.

Again, if "we" as individuals can be separated from our brains we could blow our own heads off and still think. If there is any evidence for the talking heads in the cartoon Futureama I am at a loss.

No one is going to survive a decapitation PERIOD! And it is not as if the brain regulates all the other body functions, including the heart.

[Angrboda]

I'll cut to the chase if you like. Your "ideas" have already been tried, examined, and found wanting well over a half century ago. On that basis, are you willing to give up "the idea" that ideas have to be scientifically and empirically confirmed in order for them to be valid? Or is this an idea you are not willing to give up if challenged?

There is a difference between things we accept without evidence in daily life, for example, I have a reasonable expectation that my house will still be in tact when I get home. I have a reasonable expectation that my cat will still be alive when I get home, he is young enough and strictly an indoor cat. And then there are outrageous claims like Big Foot, Area 51 UFO crap, perpetual motion machines, phone psychics and god/s deities/super natural.

So? What the fuck does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I didn't ask you about any such claims.

I don't assume that my house wont suffer damage ever, I do live in hurricane territory, I don't assume my cat will live forever, but my house exists and my cat exists. Those other claims are not provable and are merely the conspiracy pet whims of those who support them.

Again, so fucking what? I didn't ask about any of these things. I can only assume you're littering your response with irrelevant red herrings in a vain attempt to obscure the fact that you haven't answered the question. Or I could be uncharitable and conclude that you're too stupid to even understand the question.

If my house got damaged by a fallen tree or hit by lightening, I wouldn't keep my prior expectation that it is ok, when new data comes in, I change. When my cat gets older my expectations will change because when any pet or human gets old their health becomes an issue.

The other claims I mentioned don't start in anything provable, other than humans have vivid imaginations.

More irrelevant bull twaddle. You sure do seem to like to listen to yourself prattle on about this and that. It's a shame there are no actual answers in your soliloquys.

On second thought, I'm not going to be charitable. The reason you're making up all these irrelevant examples is because you don't actually understand the question. And I don't really care to waste my time explaining a simple question to a moron who is more interested in pontificating about his rather unrelated views than answering the question asked.


You, sir, are a turnip.

*plonk*

[Brian37]

I'll cut to the chase if you like. Your "ideas" have already been tried, examined, and found wanting well over a half century ago. On that basis, are you willing to give up "the idea" that ideas have to be scientifically and empirically confirmed in order for them to be valid? Or is this an idea you are not willing to give up if challenged?

There is a difference between things we accept without evidence in daily life, for example, I have a reasonable expectation that my house will still be in tact when I get home. I have a reasonable expectation that my cat will still be alive when I get home, he is young enough and strictly an indoor cat. And then there are outrageous claims like Big Foot, Area 51 UFO crap, perpetual motion machines, phone psychics and god/s deities/super natural.

So? What the fuck does this have to do with the price of tea in China? I didn't ask you about any such claims.

I don't assume that my house wont suffer damage ever, I do live in hurricane territory, I don't assume my cat will live forever, but my house exists and my cat exists. Those other claims are not provable and are merely the conspiracy pet whims of those who support them.

Again, so fucking what? I didn't ask about any of these things. I can only assume you're littering your response with irrelevant red herrings in a vain attempt to obscure the fact that you haven't answered the question. Or I could be uncharitable and conclude that you're too stupid to even understand the question.

If my house got damaged by a fallen tree or hit by lightening, I wouldn't keep my prior expectation that it is ok, when new data comes in, I change. When my cat gets older my expectations will change because when any pet or human gets old their health becomes an issue.

The other claims I mentioned don't start in anything provable, other than humans have vivid imaginations.

More irrelevant bull twaddle. You sure do seem to like to listen to yourself prattle on about this and that. It's a shame there are no actual answers in your soliloquys.

On second thought, I'm not going to be charitable. The reason you're making up all these irrelevant examples is because you don't actually understand the question. And I don't really care to waste my time explaining a simple question to a moron who is more interested in pontificating about his rather unrelated views than answering the question asked.


You, sir, are a turnip.

*plonk*

Ouch that hurt, you hurt my feelings.....Oh wait, your lack of understanding leads you to name call, so what. But "turnip"? Wow, what a cut down. I am going to cry now.

I have one too "You're a poopie pants"! What, didn't work on you?

To quote Princes Lea from the original Star Wars "NERF HERDER!" Now that is a cut down!

[Cato]

To quote Princes Lea from the original Star Wars "NERF HERDER!" Now that is a cut down!

Who's fuzzy lookin' ?