What God is to the Universe is what your mind is to your body

[Whateverist]

That's where, I'd say, 99% of things fall apart.  People dive into some topic with a paper in their hands that, they think, says x.  They lack an understanding of the field, and in many cases they lack the ability the manufacture rigorously valid comments and inferences -based- upon what paper they're holding.  Instead of discussing the paper, the science, it becomes a tedious and lengthy exploration into basic propositional structure and mechanics.

All to often..we find this this, rather than the subject of the paper, is what folks really wanted to do anyway.  Argue over the meaning of words, argue over the availability of knowledge, argue over the rules of inference.

Bah.

But .. but .. but .. what if there are several phrases which can be interpreted as supporting what you already believe.  Isn't that is what is called a "valid inference"?  *makes quotations with fingers*

[bennyboy]

I think we're going to have to just disagree on this one.  I do think that scientific hypothesis, in this field, currently....have explanatory value.  A Theory of Mind (in the scientific sense) will either emerge from the contenders or will not, and we'll just keep looking...but what we have moves those chains.  It may not explain it all, it may even be wholly wrong, but it gives us a piece to work with.

That's fine, but nobody is arguing against science or the value of hypotheses.

I'm arguing that until we know on what level of organization the elements of mind supervene, something like the OP could be taken seriously-ish.

You've been asking me what -allows- for mind, qualia, psychogony, psychology.  Both of us, it seems...say brain, to one extent or another.  I think that what we do know -could-, not necessarily does, but -could- explain what we desire to know.  I appreciate that you wonder if there's more, or think that there must be more - in order to explain the phenomena we both agree exists and is real in a tangible and meaningful sense.

It's not that I think there's more. It's that I think much, much less may be required.

 An unknown, or barely known quantity or quality that might be rationally inferred, directly or indirectly tested...but not - heretofore, described.  I wonder that too.  It's certainly possible, and would resolve some paradox, in specific instances, for sure.  I can only say that we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

It boggles the mind trying to imagine how we ever COULD get there. But I doubt Newton imagined computers playing League of Legends, so. . . who knows?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm arguing that until we know on what level of organization the elements of mind supervene, something like the OP could be taken seriously-ish.

Doubtful, for reasons not at all related to our discussion.  

It's not that I think there's more.  It's that I think much, much less may be required.

More in the sense of a description, as in..it takes -more- than just a brain, just the clicking and clacking of a biological machine.  A brain without whatever that -less- of yours is or may be would not present consciousness.  It would be, just processing..as you've often put it.  

I'd suppose I'd ask why, if it takes less, if it's intrinsic..for example...to the quantum fields or to matter, to the universe...the digital camera can be then maintained not to have whatever that less is?

[fdesilva]

A person with their mind is able to control the hands etc. Thus from the perspective of the mind the body is in its control. So what if the Big bang and as such the universe is the creation of a Mind?  Our own existence is the best evidence that this is a possibility.

I'm pretty sure personhood is centered in the hands.  It is they which move themselves and at the same time create the illusion that we have a 'mind'.

Everything we know or can ever know is via our minds.If the mind is an illusion then everything else is also part of the same illusion. So this brings to question the very existence of the hand.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But I'm interested that we are no longer waving at the brain, but at neurons.  Tell me, what is it about the neurons that allows for subjective awareness?

You said earlier in this thread that you were wondering at what level mind arises, yet here, you're saying it arises at the level of neurons.

It's entirely possible that mind arises at the systemic level.

[Whateverist]

I'm pretty sure personhood is centered in the hands.  It is they which move themselves and at the same time create the illusion that we have a 'mind'.

Everything we know or can ever know is via our minds.If the mind is an illusion then everything else is also part of the same illusion. So this brings to question the very existence of the hand.

Almost right.  Actually it is the hands which create the illusion that it is your mind which creates the illusion.  Since the hands create the illusion everything else is naturally part of the illusion.  In a sense, we all have the whole wide world in our hands.

[GUBU]

As I have just demonstrated pretty comprehensively, using a non-biased resource purely on the subject of etymology (which you brought up), that is not true.

http://www.english-for-students.com/pater.html

Pater and patr are the root words for both Father and Pattern.  They also have the same function biologically. The Father imparts imparts material pattern to complete the Mother's set, the matter of the Mother's body is used to grow the embryo.

---

Why then, would seeing an underlying meaning here or anywhere else -mean- anything more than whatever underlying divine meaning resides in your taking a morning shit?  It becomes another term for "normal stuff happening".

Meh, not even fun crazy...boring crazy.  A deranged accountant..when I was hoping for a murderous clown.

On that note, did you know there are more bacterial flora and fauna cells in your body than human cells?  You aren't the passenger, you're the ride.

It means what it means to those who seek it, answers only matter to those who ask good questions.

Hey, bullshit artist, if I wanted a bullshit story I'd have asked my seven year old cousin to tell me a make believe story, she's much more accomplished at fiction than you are.

[bennyboy]

I'd suppose I'd ask why, if it takes less,  if it's intrinsic..for example...to the quantum fields or to matter, to the universe...the digital camera can be then maintained not to have whatever that less is?

For a guy talking about composition fallacies all the time, that's a strange question.

[bennyboy]

But I'm interested that we are no longer waving at the brain, but at neurons.  Tell me, what is it about the neurons that allows for subjective awareness?

You said earlier in this thread that you were wondering at what level mind arises, yet here, you're saying it arises at the level of neurons.

It's entirely possible that mind arises at the systemic level.

I'm not saying that.  But yes, it's entirely possible.

[GUBU]

Given that mind is an emergent property of a brain that is part of a body, you're belaboring the obvious. But you're also miscategorizing the requirement. Fact is, comatose women have been kept on life-support so that they could bring their fetus to term (http://www.medicaldaily.com/life-support...aby-389238, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/04/br...33381.html, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Torres).


In this case it needed even more minds Doctors Nurses etc

You'll need to demonstrate that need. Simply repeating it is not demonstration.

The Mind cannot be an emergent property. My reasons are given on this thread

http://atheistforums.org/thread-44629.html

A more detail account on
http://tianweb.com/Event%20to%20Dualism.pdf

and

http://philpapers.org/rec/DESCAS

The evidence very strongly suggests that your mind is an emergent property of the way in which your brain functions. We have mapped different areas of our brains to how we process sights, sounds, physical sensations, we have isolated areas which generate feelings and we have figured out which parts control different autonomic functions, how we store memories, do calculations process linguistic inputs and many other intellectual ideas.

You whining that your religion tells you otherwise changes nothing about the fact that the preponderance of evidence says you are badly wrong.