A question for materialists

The vast majority of neuroscientists today are Materialists. This means that they believe in a philosophy called Materialism.

"Materialism" is defined as: "the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies."

Materialism asserts that the brain is the source of consciousness. My problem with this however is that the brain is made of matter and matter is unconscious. My question to neuroscientists and by extension Materialists is this.

How does the brain think a thought?

a reply to: Thetan

From the website TheSelf.com


THE MIND DOES NOT EXIST

Even as a mirror reflects an object held close to it, one's behavior reflects as the ego-sense (division) in one's consciousness. However, if this behavior is 'held (witnessed) at a distance from consciousness' and there is no identification with such behavior, the ego sense (division) does not arise.

(Concise Yoga Vasistha pg 135 - ISBN: 087395954X)

In the middle between the sight and the seen, there is a relationship which is known as the seer. When the division between the seer, the sight and the seen is abolished, that is the supreme (consciousness).

Be that always.

Even as you do not busy yourself with the affairs of a future village, do not get tangled with the moods of your mind, but be established in truth (consciousness). Regard the mind as a foreigner or a piece of wood or stone.

There is no mind in infinite consciousness; that which is done by this non-existent mind is also unreal. Be established in this realization.

I have investigated the truth concerning the mind for a very long time O Rama, and have found none.

Only infinite consciousness (awareness) exists.

(Concise Yoga Vasistha pg 115 - ISBN: 087395954X)

a reply to: JimNasium

MIND CONQUERED, WORLD CONQUERED

It is the mind that has made all this world, as pots from clay.

When the mind is conquered, everything is conquered.

Remember, that the mind is almost invincible... except through intelligent practise.

The very best intelligent means by which the mind can be subdued is complete freedom from desire, hope or expectation in regard to all objects at all times.

It is by this means that this powerful elephant (the mind) can be subdued. This means is both very easy and extremely difficult; it is very difficult for one who does not engage himself in serious practise, but very easy for one who is earnest in his effort.

Just as there is no harvest without sowing, the mind is not subdued without persistent practise. Hence, take up this practise of renunciation. Until one turns away from sense pleasures here, one will continue to roam in this world of sorrow.

Even a strong man will not reach his destination if he does not move towards it.

No one can reach this state of total dispassion without persistent practise.

Only by right self exertion can dispassion be attained; there is no other means.

People talk about divine grace or fate, but in this world we perceive the body, not a god. When people speak of god they simply imply what is inevitable, what is beyond their control and the events of natural order. Even so, whatever brings about total equanimity and the cessation of joy and sorrow is also referred to as divine grace.

Divine grace, natural order and right self exertion all refer to the same truth; the distinction is due to wrong perception or illusion.

Whatever the mind conceives of through right self-exertion comes to be in its own fruition, and when the mind apprehends such fruition, there is experience of joy, etc.

The mind is the doer, and whatever it conceives of, the natural order (niyati) creates and manifests. The mind is also able to run counter to the natural order; hence it may even be said that the mind is the prompter of the natural order.

Even as wind moves in space, the jiva (the individual) functions in this world, doing what has to be done within the natural order though such actions appear to be selfish or egotistic. Prompted by nature, he seems to move or stand still - both of which are mere expressions or false superimpositions, even as the movement of trees on a mountain top makes it look as if the peak is swaying.

Hence, as long as there is mind there is neither god nor a natural order; when the mind has ceased to be... let there be whatever is!


(The Concise Yoga Vasistha - ISBN: 087395954X)



I hope You don't mind?

a reply to: JimNasium
So do you think the brain produces consciousness?

originally posted by: Thetan
How does the brain think a thought?

How do you define a thought and what is the lowest form of life that can think one?

a reply to: Thetan

Answer: Quantum tunneling.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Thetan
How does the brain think a thought?

How do you define a thought and what is the lowest form of life that can think one?

An example of a thought is, a mental image picture. I don't know the answer to your second question.

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
a reply to: Thetan

Answer: Quantum tunneling.

What is quantum tunneling?

originally posted by: Thetan
The vast majority of neuroscientists today are Materialists. This means that they believe in a philosophy called Materialism.

"Materialism" is defined as: "the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies."

Materialism asserts that the brain is the source of consciousness. My problem with this however is that the brain is made of matter and matter is unconscious. My question to neuroscientists and by extension Materialists is this.

How does the brain think a thought?

I don't think the brain thinks a thought. I think the brain is a very well engineered data acquisition and control system, a localized SCADA interface tethered by some presently unknown technology to someplace else, where we really are located. We dream the dream of who we are, not knowing what we are, in a preordained dance set by an unknown choreographer's hand.

Scientists claim they know where memories are stored but are there really enough storage locations in the brain to store an entire life of sensory input? Our eyes alone are what, 150 megapixels each? Our auditory range outperforms the best digital processing system. Now we've overloaded our capacity for storage, probably. So now I'll mention touch, taste and smell, an equally daunting amount of data.

I think the brain is our interface, it is a way to anchor us to a material reality. It keeps us inmates occupied in our material prison, hell if you will. There was an interesting line from the movie, The Prophecy, "Hell is not being able to feel the presence of God." Isn't that what it is like here in this virtual construct, this faux reality? This place engineered down to the finest of details. Where else would beings kill their own kind and everything else for greed, sport and vengeance if they could feel the presence of a creator?

No, we feel the presence of our jailer.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Thetan
An example of a thought is, a mental image picture.

OK we know something about that by researching a person known as "MX", who lost the ability to form mental image pictures. From researching MX we know there's a specific, measurable area of the brain involved in that function:

discovermagazine.com...

Della Sala and Zeman scanned MX’s brain to see if they could find the source of this deficit. They first showed him a series of faces. MX’s brain responded in much the same way as the architects’ brains did, activating a network of regions that process vision and recognize individuals. Then the scientists showed their test subjects a series of names of famous people. As they read each name, the men were asked to picture that person. In the brains of the control group, the mind’s-eye regions became active, much as before. But in MX’s brain, those regions remained quiet. Even though the individual regions of his brain were working normally, some of the connections seemed to be down.

So I would suggest the researchers' ability to measure a specific area of the brain involved in this function suggests the brain is performing a material role in this process, even though some details are still not fully understood.

a reply to: Thetan

Brains do not think thoughts, or else you could say a brain in a jar is thinking. It takes a functioning human organism, with respiratory, endocrine, digestive, skeletal, muscular, and nervous systems to think. Of course a being with senses that point outward would use confused words to describe inward processes such as "thoughts" or "mind".

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: Thetan

Brains do not think thoughts, or else you could say a brain in a jar is thinking. It takes a functioning human organism, with respiratory, endocrine, digestive, skeletal, muscular, and nervous systems to think. Of course a being with senses that point outward would use confused words to describe inward processes such as "thoughts" or "mind".

How does the brain think a thought when it is in a living, healthy, and normal body?

If you still take exception to that: how does a body think a thought?

a reply to: Thetan

I might not be able to provide a scientific analysis, which I think would involve articulating what could be billions of processes, but I physiological point of view is all one needs, and anything else is a lullaby .

Many processes go into thinking a thought, but a few basic ones are self-evident. Primary to the question, a human organism must be situated in an environment. Without either of these conditions being met, we could never say any thinking is going on. Second, that the human biology and the environment are so constituted that thinking occurs. Without these, thinking would not occur. Third, that the biology isn't hindered in such a way as to hinder thinking. Lastly, that something called a "thought" is produced by thinking.

The last point, however, is a subtle grammatical error, resulting in a folk-psychology. We cannot think a thought any more than we can see a sight or feel a feeling or smell a smell. A thought is not produced from thinking. We just think, and we do so for the reasons stated previous.

a reply to: Thetan

Your brain/nervous system consists of specialized cells called neurons. The interesting thing about neurons is that they are electrically excitable. This means changes of the cell membrane electric potential can cause a change of polarity which is transmitted through the axiom to other neurons/cells.

And this is what is happening all the time in your brain. The neurons are highly interconnected form feedback loops and are constantly undergoing polarity changes, "firing" signals. This process is what you may call thinking. The thinking stops when the neurons stop firing. This state is called brain death.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Bobs...

Your theory is interesting, but I feel it is worth clarifying a few things, based on something you said. You intimated that your theory of the mind comes from the idea that there are not enough physical storage locations on the map of the human brain, to store a lifetime of memory. You may well be correct there, but, you see, human beings do not generally remember their entire lives, every second, of every day, of every week, month, year, decade and so on.

We dream, and it is said by some that dreams and nightmares can operate in a similar way to a disc clean up, or defragmentation procedure in a computer. The data we do not use, regularly access or subconsciously require to retain, is not necessarily lost, or over written, but the quanta of that data are recycled. In short, we have the ability to reclaim RAM that was being used to maintain data we did not need. We also have the ability to limit, or expand the amount of input we receive, if we put our minds to it so to speak.

For example, I do not recall the precise details of what was said just before I had my first kiss. What I remember is the sensations, sense memory, smells, tastes, sensations on my skin, the way the hair stood up on the back of my neck...and so on. The details surrounding that event however, are unnecessary to retain. If things had worked out with the lady in question, no doubt I would recall more about it, because I would WANT to. As it is, only the sensation remains, because the emotion bought to mind by the event is not useful to me, but the memory of what it is to be physically close to someone is, very much so, and becomes more important the longer it has been since my last involvement with another human being. Forgetting what physical connection to another person feels like can be...harrowing, so I preserve the memory of the sensation, and discard the rest because it is toxic.

If you ask me what we conversed about, last time I hung out with my best friend, I will remember. If you ask me what I conversed about with a randomer in the street a week ago, I will tell you that I only just remember having the conversation at all, not a single bit of what it was about!

a reply to: TrueBrit

Dreaming is more likely a result of the paralymphatic system doings its job while you sleep. A sleeping brain shows quite a bit of activity that relates to the movement of fluid and beta amyloids out of the brain.

Dreaming is likely a side effect of this paralymphatic process.

originally posted by: Thetan
My problem with this however is that the brain is made of matter and matter is unconscious. My question to neuroscientists and by extension Materialists is this.

How does the brain think a thought?

The same way that fluid mechanics arises out of the Standard Model. Collective epi-phenomenon.

And there are many things that brains do which are not conscious. And it is simply an assertion that "matter is unconscious".

a reply to: TrueBrit

Your argument is well taken, however, how would you explain eidetic memory, where literally every incident can be remembered and fully described? I realize this doesn't happen often in people, but the majority can at least recall events with some semblance of accuracy. Unless it's trauma based possibly.

Someone else here mentioned quantum tunnelling as a means I suppose to thinking thoughts. I would rather turn that around and posit that quantum tunnelling is a means to read sensory data and control what we are remotely. When one has two identical and entrained partcles, action at one causes an orthogonal action at the other. What better way is there to create a remote control system, since according our understanding of physical laws, information through the gateway is transferred in an infinitely small period of time due to spatial compression. Now there would be an effective SCADA system lol.

Cheers - Dave