[W:390]Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

[davidhume]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

The idea that the mind is only the brain has never been proven. There are many arguments making it seem obvious it is so, but further analysis shows problems.
We may not be able to think without the brain...but neither can we eat without a mouth and stomach. Food is not just defined as that which the stomach processes. Likewise, the intelligibility of the world can exist without depending on the brain.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Physi...rd+reconciliation+of+science+and+spirituality

The author of the article I linked wrote this book: Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality

Now keep insisting that he is a physicalist, materialist, atheist.

"What I found, generally speaking, most distressing was the seeming tendency of some authors to oppose metaphysical materialism with a metaphysical idealism. Maybe they simply haven't done much philosophy, but such absolutisms are antithetical to science--unless, of course, one is talking in a most old fashioned way of the faith based "science" of theology and such subsidiary topics as demonology, soteriology etc."

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23466252-beyond-physicalism

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

The idea that the mind is only the brain has never been proven. There are many arguments making it seem obvious it is so, but further analysis shows problems.
We may not be able to think without the brain...but neither can we eat without a mouth and stomach. Food is not just defined as that which the stomach processes. Likewise, the intelligibility of the world can exist without depending on the brain.

Right, that is exactly what I have been saying here, which they seem incapable of understanding. Maybe they will listen to you.

 

[davidhume]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

Right, that is exactly what I have been saying here, which they seem incapable of understanding. Maybe they will listen to you.

Appreciate your confidence. Let's see if I can hold my own.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

Right, that is exactly what I have been saying here, which they seem incapable of understanding. Maybe they will listen to you.

You are very easy to understand.

 

[blarg]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

“It’s a popular fact that 90 percent of the brain is not used and, like most popular facts, it is wrong. . . . It is used. One of its functions is to make the miraculous seem ordinary, to turn the unusual into the usual. Otherwise, human beings, faced with the daily wondrousness of everything, would go around wearing a stupid grin, saying “Wow,” a lot. Part of the brain exists to stop this from happening.”

― Terry Pratchett, Small Gods

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

Oh that book was actually written by someone else, who he co-authored an article with. But here is a description of Kastrup, just to make sure you stop saying that I got his article completely backwards:

Make sure you notice that he wrote a book described as "A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality."

"Bernardo Kastrup has a Ph.D. in computer engineering from Eindhoven University of Technology and specializations in artificial intelligence and reconfigurable computing. He has worked as a scientist in some of the world's foremost research laboratories, including the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the Philips Research Laboratories. Bernardo has authored many academic papers and books on philosophy and science. His most recent book is "The Idea of the World: A multi-disciplinary argument for the mental nature of reality," based on rigorous analytic argument and empirical evidence."

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

And saying "Yes it does," "Yes we do" is not a scientific argument.

Your non-arguments will be ignored.

Sorry but, first you need to make a coherent claim before we even get to debating any scientific arguments.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

https://www.amazon.com/Idea-World-M...e=UTF8&qid=1546735421&sr=1-1&keywords=kastrup

This is Kastrup's book. The description says: "The case begins with an exposition of the logical fallacies and internal contradictions of the reigning physicalist ontology and its popular alternatives, such as bottom-up panpsychism. It then advances a compelling formulation of idealism that elegantly makes sense of - and reconciles - classical and quantum worlds. The main objections to idealism are systematically refuted and empirical evidence is reviewed that corroborates the formulation presented here."

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Physi...rd+reconciliation+of+science+and+spirituality

The author of the article I linked wrote this book: Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality

Now keep insisting that he is a physicalist, materialist, atheist.

The Scientific American article you posted was by Bernardo Kastrup. (By Bernardo Kastrup on March 29, 2017).

Please show us where your Amazon link says he is the author of the book "Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality"

Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality
by Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Adam Crabtree (Goodreads Author) (Editor), Paul Marshall (Goodreads Author) (Editor), Harald Atmanspacher (Contributor), Loriliai Biernacki (Contributor), Bernard Carr (Contributor), Wolfgang Fach (Contributor), Michael Grosso (Contributor) , David E. Presti (Contributor), Gregory Shaw (Contributor), Henry P. Stapp (Contributor), Eric M. Weiss (Contributor), Ian Whicher (Contributor)

Can't see the name Bernado Kastrup there.

BTW, looking up Kastrup's bio, it shows his background is in Computer Engineering not Neuroscience, so even if he was saying what you claim he was saying (and he did not go so far as to talk about anything like a 'conscious universe' etc in his SA article), he's not an expert in the field of Neuroscience anyway.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

The Scientific American article you posted was by Bernardo Kastrup. (By Bernardo Kastrup on March 29, 2017).

Please show us where your Amazon link says he is the author of the book "Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality"

Beyond Physicalism: Toward Reconciliation of Science and Spirituality
by Edward F. Kelly (Editor), Adam Crabtree (Goodreads Author) (Editor), Paul Marshall (Goodreads Author) (Editor), Harald Atmanspacher (Contributor), Loriliai Biernacki (Contributor), Bernard Carr (Contributor), Wolfgang Fach (Contributor), Michael Grosso (Contributor) , David E. Presti (Contributor), Gregory Shaw (Contributor), Henry P. Stapp (Contributor), Eric M. Weiss (Contributor), Ian Whicher (Contributor)

Can't see the name Bernado Kastrup there.

BTW, looking up Kastrup's bio, it shows his background is in Computer Engineering not Neuroscience, so even if he was saying what you claim he was saying (and he did not go so far as to talk about anything like a 'conscious universe' etc in his SA article), he's not an expert in the field of Neuroscience anyway.

I already corrected that.

 

[HonestJoe]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

You have interpreted the evidence wrong. We know that changes to the physical brain coincide, correlate with, changes in conscious experience. That in no way implies that the brain generates conscious experience.

It certainly implies that it could and strongly suggests at least some kind of link. Your claim appears to be that this is evidence against any such link, which doesn't make sense.

Conscious experience also correlates with changes in brain activity. Yet you materialists never infer that conscious experience generates changes in the brain.

Consciousness appears to follow on from brain activity. I'm not aware of any way to influence consciousness via any means that isn't triggering changes in brain activity. In fact "consciousness" isn't especially well defined at all. I'm not saying any of your proposals couldn't possibly be true, only that you've not provided any good reason to believe they are.

Oh, and please don't call me a "materialist", especially when it's intended as a thinly veiled insult. I deliberately pointed out why I don't accept that false dichotomy.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

BTW, looking up Kastrup's bio, it shows his background is in Computer Engineering not Neuroscience, so even if he was saying what you claim he was saying (and he did not go so far as to talk about anything like a 'conscious universe' etc in his SA article), he's not an expert in the field of Neuroscience anyway.

Artificial intelligence research is closely related to neuroscience. Both are studying the same things.

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

It certainly implies that it could and strongly suggests at least some kind of link. Your claim appears to be that this is evidence against any such link, which doesn't make sense.

Consciousness appears to follow on from brain activity. I'm not aware of any way to influence consciousness via any means that isn't triggering changes in brain activity. In fact "consciousness" isn't especially well defined at all. I'm not saying any of your proposals couldn't possibly be true, only that you've not provided any good reason to believe they are.

Oh, and please don't call me a "materialist", especially when it's intended as a thinly veiled insult. I deliberately pointed out why I don't accept that false dichotomy.

The author of the article I linked in the OP is strongly opposed to "physicalism" which means the same thing as "materialism."

 

[davidhume]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

"I'm not aware of any way to influence consciousness via any means that isn't triggering changes in brain activity. "

Where does the brain register thinking about vanilla ice cream and thinking about vanilla ice cream with chocolate sauce?

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

In case you still think Kastrup is arguing that the brain creates the mind, one of his books is "Why Materialism is Baloney."

This should make some of you stop and wonder why you interpreted the article as saying exactly the opposite of what it said.

 

[Daisy]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

...or an angel.

Just be careful...Satan has angels, too...

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

In case you still think Kastrup is arguing that the brain creates the mind, one of his books is "Why Materialism is Baloney."

This should make some of you stop and wonder why you interpreted the article as saying exactly the opposite of what it said.

I'm sympathetic to the main concept, but reading the book actually made me more skeptical. The author's style of argumentation seems to be just hammering into your head that his points are self-evident and misinterpreting scientific findings.

One of the first things he rests his theory on is transpersonal psychology, which doesn't seem to have any empirical evidence.

And sometimes he seems to be just redefining words then arguing they don't mean what people usually mean by them, like consciousness.

I did finish it, but I don't feel I got any insight from it.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20543665-why-materialism-is-baloney

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

Artificial intelligence research is closely related to neuroscience. Both are studying the same things.

The fields of AI research and neuroscience can gain insight from each other, but they are not 'studying the same things' or are 'closely related'. This shows your lack of knowledge of both fields.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

"I'm not aware of any way to influence consciousness via any means that isn't triggering changes in brain activity. "

Where does the brain register thinking about vanilla ice cream and thinking about vanilla ice cream with chocolate sauce?

Use fMRI

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

The fields of AI research and neuroscience can gain insight from each other perhaps, but they are not 'studying the same things' or are 'closely related'. This shows your lack of knowledge of both fields.

I have a Ph.D. in cognitive science. These are the things I spent my life learning about. It is very unlikely I know less about it than you.

 

[HonestJoe]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

The author of the article I linked in the OP is strongly opposed to "physicalism" which means the same thing as "materialism."

How is that any different from dismissing anything you're proposing because it's "spiritualism"? Or to put it another way;

"You are wrong because I don't believe in what you are saying." That is not a logical argument.

None of that impacts any of the actual points I've made anyway.

 

[Quaestio]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

In case you still think Kastrup is arguing that the brain creates the mind, one of his books is "Why Materialism is Baloney."

This should make some of you stop and wonder why you interpreted the article as saying exactly the opposite of what it said.

Of course he's not arguing anything about "the brain creates the mind", in that article. He's not arguing the opposite either.

All he discussed in that article was that certain brain injuries can cause feelings of 'self-transcendence'. You're reading way too much into the article that he didn't say at all.

By the way, where are those 'pasted specific quotes' from the article you said you were going to produce?

 

[hado117]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

Not my theory actually, but the one that makes the most sense to me.

There are a small number of atheists at this forum who hijack any thread I start on the subject of spirituality and science. They are a specific kind of atheist -- the kind that believes mind is created by matter.

Most atheists are actually open to spiritual ideas, but these materialist atheists are not. And their arguments are almost always -- "You are wrong because I don't believe in what you are saying." That is not a logical argument.

The materialist atheists here also demand evidence, without having to provide scientific evidence or logic themselves.

So here you are. This Scientific American blog article gives some pretty good reasons for thinking the brain is not the kind of organ you think it is. As neuroscience and imaging technology advance, the evidence is increasing that the brain is NOT a generator of consciousness and cognition.

According to what I know, and what makes sense to me, the brain allows the mind to interact with the world that is perceived by the physical senses. It allows us to process time, to interpret physical sensations, and to communicate.

Read this carefully and try to be unbiased. Even though it is from one of those wacko new age websites.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/transcending-the-brain/

the mind exists with or without a brain,. I think i think ith,.... the minds.. the consciousness of eternity is available to the mind that can leave the confines of its brain .care must be taken to keeeep a link to the brain , lest one lose ones mind

 

[Good4Nothin]

Re: Ok here is evidence for my theory of brain and mind

Of course he's not arguing anything about "the brain creates the mind", in that article. He's not arguing the opposite either.

All he discussed in that article was that certain brain injuries can cause feelings of 'self-transcendence'. You're reading way too much into the article that he didn't say at all.

By the way, where are those 'pasted specific quotes' from the article you said you were going to produce?

He wrote that article to show evidence against materialism. He thinks materialism is baloney. He thinks the brain restricts and focuses our mental experience. Damage can remove some of the restriction. When there is too much damage, the patient can no longer interact with the world, so we don't know what they are experiencing.

He is expressing ideas that have been expressed by many others. That the brain is an organ used by the mind to focus on this 3D world of the physical senses. If the brain is disrupted or damaged by drugs or injuries, mental experience tends to expand, rather than contract.

These ideas are not new, but philosophers and scientists are becoming more interested in them. Materialism is not accepted as unquestioningly as it was in the 20th century.