Does Brain=Mind? How Valid Is Strict Materialism?

The brain is obviously not a classical machine, but it is a quantum mechanical machine. It's highly distributed, highly parallel, highly recursive, highly plastic, and overall highly complicated. The seemingly transcendent nature of the human brain can be explained by understanding these different properties of the brain. However I will admit that I have trouble believing the human brain can store so many memories, it is possible imo that we can store our memories in some sort of external consciousness field, perhaps even a global consciousness field.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: skunkape23
There is one solid experiment that could be performed to see if the brain=mind.
We will all find an answer to that question in due time.
My hunch tells me that the brain acts, on some level, as a transceiver for an external consciousness, but the only people who know the answer to that question are incapable of making a report in a scientifically verifiable way using our current instruments.

I tend to think that the brain is a transceiver of consciousness as well. But what is the experiment? And who are the people who know the answer to the question?

The experiment would involve destroying one's brain.
The people who know the answer to the question are all dead by common reckoning.
Last I checked they aren't saying anything.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
The brain is obviously not a classical machine, but it is a quantum mechanical machine. It's highly distributed, highly parallel, highly recursive, highly plastic, and overall highly complicated. The seemingly transcendent nature of the human brain can be explained by understanding these different properties of the brain. However I will admit that I have trouble believing the human brain can store so many memories, it is possible imo that we can store our memories in some sort of external consciousness field, perhaps even a global consciousness field.

The mind is a creative, inner dimension of awareness and visualisation.
This can be subjectively verified.
The brain however, is an unreliable computer both in processing and memory.
Computers calculate things, we make things up.

The ability to interpret noisy, analogue data is what the brain does well from a computational view.
The mind then jumps to conclusions, based on incomplete data, giving us much needed predictive capabilities,
Yet not without side effects due to inaccuracy.
You don't do calculus, when catching a ball,an impulsive guess is what places your hand in the correct position.

Creative post interpretation gives us continuity of thought and memory.
You don't remember events, as a computer would store and recall the properties of that event.
Rather you recall their place in the narrative in your mind.

I already proved to my self that its not all in our brain. Any single successful remote viewing or shared dream experiment proves that our conscious/subconscious minds are able to operate beyond all known senses of human.

Its time to understand how it all works, improve it to the point where you can pick any single skeptic on earth and change his view on this subject.

I'm on my way there.

originally posted by: jonnywhite



All beliefs are equal if not tied to empirical evidences.

Or a stake.

a reply to: TheJourney

There are three, and it is from your interactions with the three that your emotions come.

1st is the Perfect Holy Spirit within. The sages have called it Light, but it is really perfect love. This is the inner voice that guides your mind to what is spiritually pleasing.

2nd is the carnal spirit that directs the flesh. The carnal spirit always wants to please the flesh, even when the desires of the flesh srand against the Holy Spirit.

3rd is the mind. This is how you can be sure of the three (mind, body, spirit). When carnal desires sprout up the reasoning mind is able to see past the lie of the flesh, and will always choose the Light within.

This does not mean that all desires of the flesh are opposed to the Light. But those carnal desires that war against the Holy Spirit prove that indeed you are of the Light, a prisoner in the carnal flesh.

Once the mind can see clearly the war, we make the choice to follow the Light. In this we do no harm to ourselves or those around us.

The Light is without sin and is calling the mind to be Holy. The Holy mind joins the Light in heaven.

a reply to: sacgamer25
Being somewhat satirical.
My statistics appear to have reached un unholy numerology, I wonder if there is significance in this ? perhaps some Light giving stars can get me out of this predicament.

In a way our views concur, except for most of the terminology, and mythology. For instance the metaphor of light, is used mainly in the context of the shedding of false thought and ignorance, through scientific enquiry. Thus self referential metaphors can be used more sparingly, and the real truth can be illuminated by 'the light' of knowledge, and wisdom.
Holy is mostly used as 'holy cow ! I get it', which is fleeting at best.

Still we must a faith, that there is great significance in the fact that we are able to, perhaps through our brains, contemplate these questions.

Metacognitive thinking is a miraculous feat of biology ,and from this the universe as a whole. it may also be a feedback loop into madness which is why their are no intelligible alien transmissions.

originally posted by: TheJourney
At the same time, I would not say that mental health medications are just having widespread placebo effects. Which does bring to light an interesting point. The drugs regulate the chemicals in your brain. But I think we should be very careful about doing that, because I do believe that the brain takes impulses from the mind, and that dictates at least certain chemical fluctuations and the like. This is what it's supposed to do. When you artificially limit the potential range of your brain's chemical levels, the mind and brain don't really interface the way that they're supposed to, and I think bad things can happen. I think this is the reason behind things like anti-depressants setting off sucides.

I was not entirely clear, I mentioned a wide spread placebo effect, but was sort of tongue in cheek- meaning the mental health professionals have embraced and begun to believe in it.

The effect my mom was refering to works something like this-
Anti depressants change the chemicals and make the person feel more positive,
As they face the events, plce, people or things that were previously associated with negative emotions (past experiences and ideas) the good feeling begins to take the place in those associations- they change their mind...the goal being that enough of those changes in mind can happen so that even once off the meds, they do not have the same triggers anymore.

But yes, the problem so many encounter is that they end up stuck on antidepressants forever- or risk flipping out when they stop. The anti depressants seem to deal with the symptoms- not the source.

a reply to: TheJourney

Thanks for the reply, Journey.

Of course, the mind can only be experienced. The experience of mind anyways is the most obvious thing to every individual. I really don't think I can get with the idea that all experience of mind are literally physical reactions. I do understand that it is possible the perception of mind is just a sort of illusory phenomena generated by physical processes, but at the same time I find arguments that there is literally nothing other than physical processes to be sort of a way of getting stuck in a logical argument where you just totally ignore the obvious reality of your actual experience of life. But back to the original point, it is of course true that by its nature an immaterial mind would be non-empirical. Mind is only experienced, so the only observations you can make about the mind has to be through observation of your own mind.

Supposedly, around 98% of thinking is unconscious. The experience of mind, therefor, is the experience of only 2% of what is actually occurring. In light of this, the obviousness of mind is in direct proportion to how little one is conscious of it.

I am not intending to make an assertion that there is definitely an immaterial mind. Rather, I am pointing out that its opposite, that it is merely a product of physical reactions, while perhaps sometimes see as obvious science, is actually an assumption, rather than something that has been proven.

I think the question here is what exactly is the “product of physical reactions” you are referring to? What here is produced? It definitely isn’t a physical product, or we would be able to detect and measure it.

I am aware you are not explicitly assuming an immaterial mind, but it is implicit in the language used, as it is in all philosophy regarding substance dualism. It is implied that something is produced, namely, a something called a “mind”, yet this “something” is absent of any properties. So then how is something with no properties produced at all?

I think a more important question might be, is mind something that is produced
by physical processes, or is the mind the physical processes themselves?

If we assume nothing can be its own cause, which otherwise defies logic, then mind must be something caused by something that has enough power to affect or be affected. What, besides the body in relation to its environment, has the power to affect or be affected in the case of mind?

Our own experience is all any of us ever know. So isn't it strange that we completely want to exclude it from our exploration of reality? This is why science is only half complete. Well, more than half now with the emergence and increasing relevance of psychology. But, we haven't yet truly opened up to explorations of the inner subjectivity, in part because of this assumption, which I find extremely odd, that we ought to eliminate the individual from investigations about reality, despite the fact that individual subjective experience is universally present with us all.

I don’t quite agree that our own experience is all any of us ever know. “Experience” is also a tricky term I do not hold with any philosophical value. I mean what exactly is an “experience”? If all we know is our experience, then what we know is our own relationship and interaction with the environment. If you mean the classical Indian term pratyaka, perception, is the primary means of knowledge, then this is still built on that fundamental relationship between observer and observed.

Now I agree with you that mind does not equal brain. Brains are incapable of thinking, and we can prove this by placing a brain on one table, a human body on the other, and decide through observation which of the two subjects are thinking, learning, and expressing. Mental states are not brain states, but states of a body situated within a rich environment, which accounts for facts such as bacteria in the digestive system affecting emotions, learning through interaction, bodily awareness, environmental effects upon mood etc. In this case, physicalist versions of mind are throwing out the baby ( a very substantial one) with the bath water in order to prove the brain is the sole source of thinking.

a reply to: TheJourney

To say that we can demonstrate a definite correlation to some physical activity in the brain and some mental state of the individual, does not prove that the physical activity is CAUSING the mental state. That is purely speculative.

so i suppose the electrical activity occurring in the motherboard of the computer i am using right now and the data flowing across my screen are correlated but not necessarily an example of cause and effect? i would be interested in talking to someone who has had a full conversation with a comatose patient. given that the brain and its functions are apparently incongruent.

originally posted by: skunkape23
There is one solid experiment that could be performed to see if the brain=mind.
...
The experiment would involve destroying one's brain.
.

This could only provide subjective proof,
There are other less dramatic ways of testing whether brain=mind,
By tweaking the chemistry or electrical flow of the brain, and observing how it effect on the inner mind, we could conclude the affirmative in the question posed, but perhaps there is much more to chemistry, and mind than meets the eye.

originally posted by: rom12345
a reply to: sacgamer25
Being somewhat satirical.
My statistics appear to have reached un unholy numerology, I wonder if there is significance in this ? perhaps some Light giving stars can get me out of this predicament.

In a way our views concur, except for most of the terminology, and mythology. For instance the metaphor of light, is used mainly in the context of the shedding of false thought and ignorance, through scientific enquiry. Thus self referential metaphors can be used more sparingly, and the real truth can be illuminated by 'the light' of knowledge, and wisdom.
Holy is mostly used as 'holy cow ! I get it', which is fleeting at best.

Still we must a faith, that there is great significance in the fact that we are able to, perhaps through our brains, contemplate these questions.

Metacognitive thinking is a miraculous feat of biology ,and from this the universe as a whole. it may also be a feedback loop into madness which is why their are no intelligible alien transmissions.

This is Pyramid Theology. The idea is through material sciences we can become more aware. Whoever has the most knowledge of the material world then stands on top of the pyramid.

I do not partake in Pyramid Theology. I believe in the devine law. The devine law is this, seek and you will find? Seek what? Seek Love and you will find Love.

The Pyramid builders are great at looking into HOW we got here, but they are clueless when it comes to WHY.

The why is the light, the light is Holy, and the only force that can truly enLIGHTen a man is Holy Light.

The enLIGHTend ones knew about the Devine Light, this is the reason for the word enLIGHTend.

Anyone who believes enlightenment comes from understanding the material sciences is not understanding the meaning of the word en-LIGHT-end.

Man cannot subdue man, but the Light can subdue all, because it is from God and it is Holy.

Their are no pyramids that lead to God. God is mind, whatever is on your mind is what you worship. Keep your mind with the Light, and the WHY becomes devine.

Without faith in a personal relationship with God man is left at the bottom of a Pyramid built to keep the congregation absent of Light, where the only devine knowledge can be found.

Discovering the HOW is unimpressive to our father, he wishes only that we would see the WHY. And believe in the WHY, wich is devine LOVE.

And our Shepard is the Devine Law that was hardwired into the program from before creation. Let the true Light of WHY shine so that men of intelligence may become truly IN THE LIGHT, enlightened.

a reply to: Aphorism
very well presented. +

A Most Eloquent prose of , self referential light metaphor.

I would not discount truths about the paranormal, if they pass as a logical syllogism.

An infatuation with an indescribable metaphor, reveals little.
Would not the truth be of much more value ?
There is actually a real thing called light, which has mysterious properties.

And the almightily pronoun, "The Light" , means many things to many people.
perhaps these variables/place holders could be be un-obfusticated for better comprehension.

I like to think of it as 'the source' ,a purely conceptual possibility, and the inevitable primary event of causation.

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: TheJourney

Thanks for the reply, Journey.

Of course, the mind can only be experienced. The experience of mind anyways is the most obvious thing to every individual. I really don't think I can get with the idea that all experience of mind are literally physical reactions. I do understand that it is possible the perception of mind is just a sort of illusory phenomena generated by physical processes, but at the same time I find arguments that there is literally nothing other than physical processes to be sort of a way of getting stuck in a logical argument where you just totally ignore the obvious reality of your actual experience of life. But back to the original point, it is of course true that by its nature an immaterial mind would be non-empirical. Mind is only experienced, so the only observations you can make about the mind has to be through observation of your own mind.

Supposedly, around 98% of thinking is unconscious. The experience of mind, therefor, is the experience of only 2% of what is actually occurring. In light of this, the obviousness of mind is in direct proportion to how little one is conscious of it.

I am not intending to make an assertion that there is definitely an immaterial mind. Rather, I am pointing out that its opposite, that it is merely a product of physical reactions, while perhaps sometimes see as obvious science, is actually an assumption, rather than something that has been proven.

I think the question here is what exactly is the “product of physical reactions” you are referring to? What here is produced? It definitely isn’t a physical product, or we would be able to detect and measure it.

I am aware you are not explicitly assuming an immaterial mind, but it is implicit in the language used, as it is in all philosophy regarding substance dualism. It is implied that something is produced, namely, a something called a “mind”, yet this “something” is absent of any properties. So then how is something with no properties produced at all?

I think a more important question might be, is mind something that is produced
by physical processes, or is the mind the physical processes themselves?

If we assume nothing can be its own cause, which otherwise defies logic, then mind must be something caused by something that has enough power to affect or be affected. What, besides the body in relation to its environment, has the power to affect or be affected in the case of mind?

Our own experience is all any of us ever know. So isn't it strange that we completely want to exclude it from our exploration of reality? This is why science is only half complete. Well, more than half now with the emergence and increasing relevance of psychology. But, we haven't yet truly opened up to explorations of the inner subjectivity, in part because of this assumption, which I find extremely odd, that we ought to eliminate the individual from investigations about reality, despite the fact that individual subjective experience is universally present with us all.

I don’t quite agree that our own experience is all any of us ever know. “Experience” is also a tricky term I do not hold with any philosophical value. I mean what exactly is an “experience”? If all we know is our experience, then what we know is our own relationship and interaction with the environment. If you mean the classical Indian term pratyaka, perception, is the primary means of knowledge, then this is still built on that fundamental relationship between observer and observed.

Now I agree with you that mind does not equal brain. Brains are incapable of thinking, and we can prove this by placing a brain on one table, a human body on the other, and decide through observation which of the two subjects are thinking, learning, and expressing. Mental states are not brain states, but states of a body situated within a rich environment, which accounts for facts such as bacteria in the digestive system affecting emotions, learning through interaction, bodily awareness, environmental effects upon mood etc. In this case, physicalist versions of mind are throwing out the baby ( a very substantial one) with the bath water in order to prove the brain is the sole source of thinking.

"I think a more important question might be, is mind something that is produced
by physical processes, or is the mind the physical processes themselves? "

i think this question may be at least partially answered/informed by examining technology and how information is stored or otherwise manipulated. how does a motherboard process the words i am typing right now? how does the computer take a long line of 1's and 0's and turn it into a beautiful painting of a mountain sunset? how does it perceive and interpret my voice when i am dictating an email?

is the mind the radio or the song? and here's an even better question: if the mind is the song, does it require ANOTHER brain to SEND the song? does the projection require a projector?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I think a more important question might be, is mind something that is produced
by physical processes, or is the mind the physical processes themselves?

Most evidence reveals the physical realm of existence is the only one keep an eye on,
Yet through our own conciseness we have subjective proof of non-physical realms.

The non organic realms developed first with out life, but not with out inevitable outcomes and expansive purpose, chaos as it's main lever. The spiritual realms emanated from the stars and the planets, which made some of them squirm with filthy life. The planets where rather enjoying the whole bumper car days , and often speak of the old days, but don't regret settling down to let life grow on them, like slime.

a reply to: rom12345

having problems quoting and replying at the same time?

a reply to: rom12345

Yet through our own conciseness we have subjective proof of non-physical realms.

subjective and proof do not belong in the same sentence unless its to explain how they dont belong in the same sentence.

a reply to: TzarChasm

i think this question may be at least partially answered/informed by examining technology and how information is stored or otherwise manipulated. how does a motherboard process the words i am typing right now? how does the computer take a long line of 1's and 0's and turn it into a beautiful painting of a mountain sunset? how does it perceive and interpret my voice when i am dictating an email?

Processing is performed by following sets of rules. The difficulty with this analogy, that minds or brains are akin to computers, is the Chinese room thought experiment, which presents difficulties for computational mind-theories. A computer cannot learn or understand when it is simply following a set of rules, or is programmed by outside forces, as it is being told what and how to “think”, rather than thinking and learning on its own accord. A computational mind would process information at a consistent rate, as determined by the power of its “hardware”, and would never take shortcuts, optimize its efficiency, speed up the process through experience, make mistakes, do it differently etc. until it was programmed to do so. This is simply not the case with “mind”.

is the mind the radio or the song? and here's an even better question: if the mind is the song, does it require ANOTHER brain to SEND the song? does the projection require a projector?

If my post history is any indication, I am of the opinion there is no mind, spirit, consciousness, ego etc. To me, these are ghosts and superstitions that require exorcism.