Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

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

  1. #11
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,986
    Amen (Given)
    1487
    Amen (Received)
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    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.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-07-2019 at 06:12 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  2. #12
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,405
    Amen (Given)
    1016
    Amen (Received)
    1520
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon
    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.
    Last edited by MaxVel; 07-07-2019 at 06:18 AM.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  3. Amen Chrawnus amen'd this post.
  4. #13
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,986
    Amen (Given)
    1487
    Amen (Received)
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    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.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-07-2019 at 05:31 PM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  5. #14
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,405
    Amen (Given)
    1016
    Amen (Received)
    1520
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon
    vague
    Also false

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon
    and anecdotal phrase,
    Again, false.

    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon
    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.




    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon
    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.




    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon
    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.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  6. Amen seer, Chrawnus amen'd this post.
  7. #15
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    23,825
    Amen (Given)
    1582
    Amen (Received)
    4739
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    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...
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  8. #16
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,986
    Amen (Given)
    1487
    Amen (Received)
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    False

    Also false

    Again, false.
    Lacks any coherent explanation.

    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.
    It has no meaning beyond a philosophical assertion.

    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.
    You apparently cannot distinguish between philosophy and science. My references are based on the falsification of hypothesis concerning the relationship between the brain and the mind.



    Just laughable. You have a rare talent - being able to contradict yourself in one sentence.
    No contradiction whatsoever. Your response lacks a coherent explanation in clear English.

    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.
    This response crowns your post with a classic 'begging the question' demanding a scientific explanation for a metaphysical belief. It also lacks a basic understanding of science and Methodological Naturalism.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  9. #17
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,986
    Amen (Given)
    1487
    Amen (Received)
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Ouch...
    Whoops! Sat on a nail.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel
    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.
    This response crowns your post with a classic 'begging the question' demanding a scientific explanation for a metaphysical belief. It also lacks a basic understanding of science and Methodological Naturalism.

    Failed to respond to this . . .

    Based on the scientific research cited on the consciousness, mind and thoughts they are not immaterial beyond the brain. They are emergent from the brain as the input and out put of computers and TVs are emergent from the source, and NOT immaterial. This is demonstrated by the research cited that shows an instantaneous response from different areas of the brain in instantaneous changing of the mind.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-09-2019 at 09:00 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  10. #18
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,405
    Amen (Given)
    1016
    Amen (Received)
    1520
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Lacks any coherent explanation.



    It has no meaning beyond a philosophical assertion.



    You apparently cannot distinguish between philosophy and science. My references are based on the falsification of hypothesis concerning the relationship between the brain and the mind.





    No contradiction whatsoever. Your response lacks a coherent explanation in clear English.



    This response crowns your post with a classic 'begging the question' demanding a scientific explanation for a metaphysical belief. It also lacks a basic understanding of science and Methodological Naturalism.

    Enjoy your stay in the Shunya loop, where self-contradiction is a virtue, and incoherence and mangled syntax is the standard for discourse. You are invincible in your self-imposed ignorance.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  11. Amen seer, Chrawnus, Adrift amen'd this post.
  12. #19
    tWebber shunyadragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Hillsborough, NC
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    13,986
    Amen (Given)
    1487
    Amen (Received)
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxVel View Post
    Enjoy your stay in the Shunya loop, where self-contradiction is a virtue, and incoherence and mangled syntax is the standard for discourse. You are invincible in your self-imposed ignorance.
    Personal attack lacks anything meaningful, nor a coherent response.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  13. #20
    tWebber MaxVel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    It's hot!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,405
    Amen (Given)
    1016
    Amen (Received)
    1520
    Quote Originally Posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Personal attack lacks anything meaningful, nor a coherent response.

    No one buys your constant attempts to shift the topic from the question at hand to your usual red herrings.


    You do this because you are often caught out opining on things beyond your actual knowledge. Instead of confining yourself to what you do know something about (e.g. geology) you venture into areas you don't know anything about (here Philosophy of Mind) and make a spectacle of yourself when you refuse to be corrected by those who do know better. Your flailing about on the Hard Problem is a classic example.

    It is no more than an observation of fact to state that you contradicted yourself (twice!) in one sentence, nor to state that substantial parts of your posts are frequently incoherent or in poor English.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

  14. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •