Transcendental Knowledge?

[Mudhammam]

I have to disagree. From my understanding, brain typically refers only to the neurophysiology, mind is the psychical side of that functionality such as memory, linguistic capabilities, sensations and perceptions--unconscious and subconscious--etc., and consciousness is the explicit moment-to-moment experience that defines our present, such as me presently staring down at my phone screen, struggling to tap the right keys (with mind actively at work in a gazillion ways unbeknownst to me, as a result of physical changes in my brain; brain consisting of parts like any other organ, but the exclusive seat for the mind, and in turn, mind for consciousness). Obviously, that is in no way how an Idealist would convey brain, mind, and consciousness, but I think it's probably the best given the empirical data.

I'd love to pick your brain...sometime, about why we have such a disagreement. Memory isn't brain? Do you keep it in your toes? Hehehehe?

Of course not! I believe mind is dependent on the brain, but as I understand them to be used, mind and brain typically refer to different sides of the same coin.

[The Grand Nudger]

A traditional partition, perhaps. I just don't think it's a very useful or accurate partition. I wouldn't even go so far as to say "two sides" of the same coin. Seems more like one side of one coin.
(it wouldn't be the first "partition" to end up in the bin of folk magic)

[Mudhammam]

I think this clarifies the difference in terms: http://m.bjp.rcpsych.org/content/181/2/91.full

[Exian]

Well, we understand the level of accuracy our brains are capable of to an extent. We know of the light waves we cannot see and we know of the sound waves we cannot hear. And, within those spectrums, we know the sliver that we are capable of seeing and hearing. Then there are the hierarchal levels with their respective sciences that we know we cannot perceive physically nor intuitively. When you touch a table, you feel on more macro level than QM or even chem. Do these things bring our understanding of the representations of objects into sharper focus? If we did have these levels of sensation receptors and a brain capable of creating a representation based on those sensations, would this answer those questions? Or have I over simplified the question?

[Mudhammam]

For example, R, if you scanned my brain, you might be able to tell me about my mood, or my type of personality, but you wouldn't be able to tell me what I'm thinking of. I think that's the (useful) difference.

[The Grand Nudger]

And? You're referencing my ability, not anything to do with mind, brain, or consciousness. For all either of us know this actually could be done. It's just not something that we could do. I understand why people have made the distinctions, and the conclusions in your link are familiar. I don't find any of them very useful or compelling, that's all.

[Mudhammam]

Well, we understand the level of accuracy our brains are capable of to an extent. We know of the light waves we cannot see and we know of the sound waves we cannot hear. And, within those spectrums, we know the sliver that we are capable of seeing and hearing. Then there are the hierarchal levels with their respective sciences that we know we cannot perceive physically nor intuitively. When you touch a table, you feel on more macro level than QM or even chem. Do these things bring our understanding of the representations of objects into sharper focus? If we did have these levels of sensation receptors and a brain capable of creating a representation based on those sensations, would this answer those questions? Or have I over simplified the question?

Hmm. I think we would still have to ask to what extent those representations are manufactured cognitively and to what extent the external stimuli are being directly conveyed in our sense receptions of them. Perhaps further, what is doing the understanding--is our brain causing the world to appear, to us, logically consistent in intuitive perception (the function of understanding) or is that a feature of "the world"* and our brain is simply replicating it (both of which seem almost miraculous)?

*And what is "the world"?--the symbols and functions conceived by highly trained intellects to convey the Universe through mathematics, the large Macro-world our ordinary senses perceive, both, or at a more fundamental level neither?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hmm. I think we would still have to ask to what extent those representations are manufactured cognitively and to what extent the external stimuli are being directly conveyed in our sense receptions of them.

Bit of both, or so it would seem. We don;t actually "see" everything in our field of vision, for example. Some of it is legit, some is manufactured.

Perhaps further, what is doing the understanding--is our brain causing the world to appear, to us, logically consistent in intuitive perception (the function of understanding) or is that a feature of "the world"* and our brain is simply replicating it (both of which seem almost miraculous)?

Here again, perhaps both? It would be difficult to understand why every one of our brains would manufacture the same deceit - for example. But...at the same time - we do know that it's capable of doing so for any given individual.

*And what is "the world"?--the symbols and functions conceived by highly trained intellects to convey the Universe through mathematics, the large Macro-world our ordinary senses perceive, both, or at a more fundamental level neither?

Math is a descriptive representation, same as logic. I'd side with what you(or I) and the fieldmouse both perceive as being "the world" - personally (highly trained intellects need not apply). But in any given instance, of course it may be neither. Both math and our senses can refer to things not "in existence" anywhere else but math or our meatcase.

[Mudhammam]

And?

And if I tell you I see a billion dollars in my mind don't go trying to cut open my brain. :-)

[The Grand Nudger]

If I could isolate some physical structure or the collection of physical structures in your "mind" that were analogous to "a billion dollars" - I'd be given a billion dollars. Don't tempt me.