The relationship between the brain, mind, thoughts, and consciousness.

[shunyadragon]

Seer banned me from his thread 'Are Thoughts Causal?' because I actually cited scientific research and other sources he could not respond to.There for tis thread is for more specific scientific references, and well cited philosophical positions on the brain, mind, thoughts, and consciousness. I support the view that the mind, consciousness, and thoughts cannot be separated, and they are a product of the brain.

The following research previous cited and not responded to supports this view. Different areas of the brain coordinate in the thinking process of changing your mind as your thought are taking place.

Source: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-neuroscience-of-changing-your-mind/

The Neuroscience of Changing Your Mind

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

For beginning the following is a start for the scientific view, It reviews the advances in neuroscience that establish the relationship between the brain and the mind. It also reviews some of the ethical and controversial related to the discoveries of these relationships. Some future references will come form AAAS sources on neuroscience, brain and the mind:

Source: https://www.aaas.org/programs/dialogue-science-ethics-and-religion/neuroscience-brain-mind

Neuroscience, Brain & Mind

© Copyright Original Source

I do believe that the mind, thoughts, thinking, consciousness cannot specifically separated from each other, nor the neurological function of the brain

[seer]

Shuny, do you wonder why others don't want to play with you?

[Cow Poke]

Shuny, do you wonder why others don't want to play with you?

So, what's your favorite firearm?

[seer]

So, what's your favorite firearm?

Long gun - classic M14, pistol, The Judge. And you?

[Cow Poke]

Long gun - classic M14, pistol, The Judge. And you?

The Judge is a new addition to my collection - haven't had an opportunity to fire it yet. I'm still kinda partial to my Ruger .357 Security Six.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, do you wonder why others don't want to play with you?

. . . because I do not play, I cite research to support my argument, and no one has refuted nor responded to the research, especially you.

You made bogus citations of Sam Harris who is an atheist, and does not believe that consciousness even exists. Therefore consciousness is not a problem him.

You have misrepresented me concerning my belief many times. I believe the soul exists, but it is independent of the mind, thought and consciousness which is directly a product of the brain as the evidence indicates.

[shunyadragon]

This research describes the mind and consciousness as emergent from the brain and 'orchestrated interactions among different brain areas,' as the previous research shows, and not separate.

Source: http://www.aggiornamento.net/2019/07/02/mystery-of-the-mind/

How the Mind Emerges from the Brain's Complex Networks

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Long gun - classic M14, pistol, The Judge. And you?

Mindless responses. The request was made for scientific evidence for the relationship between the brain and mind, and I provided scientific research in response with no coherent responses in return.

Is your only basis for claiming consciousness is a hard problem a reference by Sam HArris who believes consciousness does not exist? Do you realize he is an atheist eliminativist, and bases his assertion on the philosophy that only the mind exists dependent on the brain, and that is all that exists?

[MaxVel]

Mindless responses. The request was made for scientific evidence for the relationship between the brain and mind, and I provided scientific research in response with no coherent responses in return.

Is your only basis for claiming consciousness is a hard problem a reference by Sam HArris who believes consciousness does not exist? Do you realize he is an atheist eliminativist, and bases his assertion on the philosophy that only the mind exists dependent on the brain, and that is all that exists?

I'm not at all sure that you understand what is meant by 'the hard problem' with reference to the mind. Given that, your thread here is quite possibly misdirected.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not at all sure that you understand what is meant by 'the hard problem' with reference to the mind. Given that, your thread here is quite possibly misdirected.

What is called the 'hard problem' is for the most part a philosophical perspective, and not the scientific perspective, and to a large extent an 'arguing form ignorance'. emphasizing clains of what we do not know concerning the nature of consciousness and the mind. There is absolutely no objective verifiable evidence nor scientific research that supports the claim that the mind and/or consciousness is in any way separate from the brain.

The evidence is clear and specific consciousness and the mind is universal with mammals and likely other animals demonstrated to be progressively becoming more complex with the evolution the brain. Self-awareness is also common with other higher mammals, and parallels the evolution of the brain.

This thread is in direct response to the request for evidence for the relationship between the brain and the mind, consciousness and thinking. This is being achieved in the research articles cited in this thread.

I do welcome scientific research and the related objective verifiable evidence that would justify 'consciousness being a hard problem. The problem is it is a negative claim for wahat some believe cannot be explained, and based on science that is hard if not impossible to falsify.

[MaxVel]

This thread is in direct response to the request for evidence for the relationship between the brain and the mind, consciousness and thinking. This is being achieved in the research articles cited in this thread..

I don't think anyone here denies that there is a relationship.

The questions of interest are: Just what is the nature of that relationship? What exactly is the mind? Can consciousness be explained at all by science (this is the hard problem)?

The answers to those questions are largely philosophical, not 'scientific'. The scientific research you're presenting makes a number of assumptions about the metaphysics of the mind and related matters, so it's not actually going to answer the questions people are actually interested in.

But it's your thread, fire away posting research that overlooks the questions of actual interest.

I do welcome scientific research and the related objective verifiable evidence that would justify 'consciousness being a hard problem. The problem is it is a negative claim for wahat some believe cannot be explained, and based on science that is hard if not impossible to falsify.

Until we've settled the metaphysical questions around the hard problem, we can't make any coherent sense of any research. Depending on what the answer to the problem is, it may not even be relevant at all.

[shunyadragon]

I don't think anyone here denies that there is a relationship.

The question is not the denial nor acceptance of the relationship.

The questions of interest are: Just what is the nature of that relationship? What exactly is the mind? Can consciousness be explained at all by science (this is the hard problem)?

The problem with the concept that 'consciousness is a hard problem' is that it is a meaningless, vague and anecdotal phrase, and offers nothing to the discussion. At present the only objective verifiable evidence is science, and it establishes that the evidence indicates a direct physical relationship.

The answers to those questions are largely philosophical, not 'scientific'.

There are relevant questions from both the philosophical and scientific perspectives, but the answers from the philosophical perspective do not offer objective verifiable evidence to support their conclusions.

The scientific research you're presenting makes a number of assumptions about the metaphysics of the mind and related matters, so it's not actually going to answer the questions people are actually interested in.

In reality the scientific research follows the criteria of Methodological Naturalism, and makes absolutely no metaphysical assumptions, which cannot be tested by scientific methods.

I was challenged to present the scientific evidence for a physical relationship, and this thread is actually doing that. Like other disciplines such as the science of evolution what is described as 'interest' depends on es perspective on science. The nature of the relationship and differences of consciousness and self-awareness in the animal kingdom has a strong relationship to the evolution of the brain.

But it's your thread, fire away posting research that overlooks the questions of actual interest.

I consider the 'actual interest' is related to the problem of the willingness to accept science. Again the request was for me to present the scientific evidence of the relationship. I fully realize that some will, of course, avoid the scientific evidence in guise of not being interested.

Until we've settled the metaphysical questions around the hard problem, we can't make any coherent sense of any research. Depending on what the answer to the problem is, it may not even be relevant at all.

No one yest here nor anywhere else have settled the metaphysical questions, because there is not any objective verifiable evidence to support any one of the the different answers proposed from the metaphysical perspective.

If you are aware of evidence that others would be interested in please cite it.

[MaxVel]

The question is not the denial nor acceptance of the relationship.



The problem with the concept that 'consciousness is a hard problem' is that it is a meaningless,

False

vague

Also false

and anecdotal phrase,

Again, false.

and offers nothing to the discussion.

You've concisely demonstrated that you don't even have a beginner's grasp of the issues involved in understanding the mind, since "the hard problem of consciousness" is a well-known shorthand for a specific issue in the philosophy of mind.

At present the only objective verifiable evidence is science, and it establishes that the evidence indicates a direct physical relationship.



There are relevant questions from both the philosophical and scientific perspectives, but the answers from the philosophical perspective do not offer objective verifiable evidence to support their conclusions.

And you can't show any of that to be true by science with objective verifiable evidence - you're doing philosophy, and using philosophy to deny the relevance of philosophy in understanding the mind. Your whole position is self-contradictory.

In reality the scientific research follows the criteria of Methodological Naturalism, and makes absolutely no metaphysical assumptions, which cannot be tested by scientific methods.

Just laughable. You have a rare talent - being able to contradict yourself in one sentence.

I was challenged to present the scientific evidence for a physical relationship, and this thread is actually doing that. Like other disciplines such as the science of evolution what is described as 'interest' depends on es perspective on science. The nature of the relationship and differences of consciousness and self-awareness in the animal kingdom has a strong relationship to the evolution of the brain.



I consider the 'actual interest' is related to the problem of the willingness to accept science. Again the request was for me to present the scientific evidence of the relationship. I fully realize that some will, of course, avoid the scientific evidence in guise of not being interested.



No one yest here nor anywhere else have settled the metaphysical questions, because there is not any objective verifiable evidence to support any one of the the different answers proposed from the metaphysical perspective.

If you are aware of evidence that others would be interested in please cite it.

Provide the objective verifiable evidence that supports your position that we must have objective verifiable evidence to settle the metaphysical questions. Bet you can't.

[seer]

Provide the objective verifiable evidence that supports your position that we must have objective verifiable evidence to settle the metaphysical questions. Bet you can't.

Ouch...