The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:03 pm Again, for that, you need the person's response. That is true since you need to make a correlation between the person's consciousness and brain activity. The person can, however, be conscious but not able to respond. So I am afraid that your argument doesn't follow.
I already stated the emergent consciousness of a person is not related solely to brain activities. Note I stated this;
Note when one feel sexy and have hard-on, it is a "state of mind" that is represented by the whole person's brain, heart, whole body, hard-dick, flow of hormones, etc. the contributing environment, etc. The state of mind is not just brain activities.
Here is another example of an emergence which is not a thing-in-itself.
When say, the Warriors won a NBA game, it is said the "team" Warriors won.
There is no way the Warrior would have won if there is no team and team-play.
But where is the real team - it was merely the activities 5 basketball players who contributed to the win.
In this case, the team-at-play was merely an emergence during the game period arising from the highly co-ordinated activities of the 5 basketball players.
There is not entity called team-Warrior.

It is the same with the mind, it is a like a "team" emerging from the co-ordinated activites of the brain, the body, the environment, etc.
Moreover, you need to debunk another alternative scenario in which the brain provides input to the mind. Again, no brain activity, no input for the mind and no experience.
As I had stated, there is no mind-in-itself as an entity to be fed with inputs.
Like what is in a team, the mind emerges upon the co-ordinated activities of the brain, the body, the environment in time.

When the senses, say the eyes and visual cortex collect information, it is like accumulating information in a specific database and not for the mind per-se as an entity.
Btw, are you aware there is a bacterial community within your human system that collect information for itself and act interdependently. The information collected by these bacteria are not for a 'mind' of a human being.
However, the activities of the bacteria will effect what is supposedly the mental actions of the person, e.g. autism is linked to bacteria in the gut and intestines.

The mind emerges upon the interaction and co-ordination of all the relevant parties, i.e. the brain, the body, the bacteria, the environment, etc. come together simultaneously.
As such there is no input of information to a mind.

I suggest you try to reconcile the emergent mind to that of a computer system or robotic-mind.
There is no mind of the computer or robot. The microprocessor is not the mind. Within an emergent computer that works, there are the various parts and systems. A working emergent computer 'mind' only works when it is turned on and all the relevant parts work in a co-ordinated logical flow.
A computer has data input which is saved in various storage device to be called upon and these stored data can be moved from one media to another, thus it is not an input into a computer-mind.

I believe you are stuck with your dogmatic belief re a mind that is an entity because your views are too confined within a silo database.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:02 am
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:03 pm Again, for that, you need the person's response. That is true since you need to make a correlation between the person's consciousness and brain activity. The person can, however, be conscious but not able to respond. So I am afraid that your argument doesn't follow.
I already stated the emergent consciousness of a person is not related solely to brain activities. Note I stated this;
Note when one feel sexy and have hard-on, it is a "state of mind" that is represented by the whole person's brain, heart, whole body, hard-dick, flow of hormones, etc. the contributing environment, etc. The state of mind is not just brain activities.
So, I repeat myself replacing brain activity by mater activity: Again, for that, you need the person's response. That is true since you need to make a correlation between the person's consciousness and mater activity. The person can, however, be conscious but not able to respond. So I am afraid that your argument doesn't follow.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:02 am

Moreover, you need to debunk another alternative scenario in which the brain provides input to the mind. Again, no brain activity, no input for the mind and no experience.
As I had stated, there is no mind-in-itself as an entity to be fed with inputs.
Like what is in a team, the mind emerges upon the co-ordinated activities of the brain, the body, the environment in time.

When the senses, say the eyes and visual cortex collect information, it is like accumulating information in a specific database and not for the mind per-se as an entity.
Btw, are you aware there is a bacterial community within your human system that collect information for itself and act interdependently. The information collected by these bacteria are not for a 'mind' of a human being.
However, the activities of the bacteria will effect what is supposedly the mental actions of the person, e.g. autism is linked to bacteria in the gut and intestines.

The mind emerges upon the interaction and co-ordination of all the relevant parties, i.e. the brain, the body, the bacteria, the environment, etc. come together simultaneously.
As such there is no input of information to a mind.

I suggest you try to reconcile the emergent mind to that of a computer system or robotic-mind.
There is no mind of the computer or robot. The microprocessor is not the mind. Within an emergent computer that works, there are the various parts and systems. A working emergent computer 'mind' only works when it is turned on and all the relevant parts work in a co-ordinated logical flow.
A computer has data input which is saved in various storage device to be called upon and these stored data can be moved from one media to another, thus it is not an input into a computer-mind.

I believe you are stuck with your dogmatic belief re a mind that is an entity because your views are too confined within a silo database.
And where is your counter-argument that the mind does not exist as a separate entity? You are just repeating yourself saying that the mind is an emergent property. I have a strong argument that the mind is a separate entity.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:02 am
bahman wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:03 pm Again, for that, you need the person's response. That is true since you need to make a correlation between the person's consciousness and brain activity. The person can, however, be conscious but not able to respond. So I am afraid that your argument doesn't follow.
I already stated the emergent consciousness of a person is not related solely to brain activities. Note I stated this;
Note when one feel sexy and have hard-on, it is a "state of mind" that is represented by the whole person's brain, heart, whole body, hard-dick, flow of hormones, etc. the contributing environment, etc. The state of mind is not just brain activities.
So, I repeat myself replacing brain activity by mater activity: Again, for that, you need the person's response. That is true since you need to make a correlation between the person's consciousness and mater activity. The person can, however, be conscious but not able to respond. So I am afraid that your argument doesn't follow.
You are being too rhetoric here.

I had argued there are many states of consciousness.
A person can be in a deep coma and his state of consciousness is definitely different from wakeful consciousness.
In this case, the state of deep coma conscious has to be specifically defined.
You just cannot generalize consciousness in all cases.
Actually when a person is in deep coma, generally he is not regarded as 'conscious' as the term is understood generally.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:02 am

Moreover, you need to debunk another alternative scenario in which the brain provides input to the mind. Again, no brain activity, no input for the mind and no experience.
As I had stated, there is no mind-in-itself as an entity to be fed with inputs.
Like what is in a team, the mind emerges upon the co-ordinated activities of the brain, the body, the environment in time.

When the senses, say the eyes and visual cortex collect information, it is like accumulating information in a specific database and not for the mind per-se as an entity.
Btw, are you aware there is a bacterial community within your human system that collect information for itself and act interdependently. The information collected by these bacteria are not for a 'mind' of a human being.
However, the activities of the bacteria will effect what is supposedly the mental actions of the person, e.g. autism is linked to bacteria in the gut and intestines.

The mind emerges upon the interaction and co-ordination of all the relevant parties, i.e. the brain, the body, the bacteria, the environment, etc. come together simultaneously.
As such there is no input of information to a mind.

I suggest you try to reconcile the emergent mind to that of a computer system or robotic-mind.
There is no mind of the computer or robot. The microprocessor is not the mind. Within an emergent computer that works, there are the various parts and systems. A working emergent computer 'mind' only works when it is turned on and all the relevant parts work in a co-ordinated logical flow.
A computer has data input which is saved in various storage device to be called upon and these stored data can be moved from one media to another, thus it is not an input into a computer-mind.

I believe you are stuck with your dogmatic belief re a mind that is an entity because your views are too confined within a silo database.
And where is your counter-argument that the mind does not exist as a separate entity? You are just repeating yourself saying that the mind is an emergent property. I have a strong argument that the mind is a separate entity.
When all the brain activities stopped at death, there is no mind as a separate entity that exists.
Show me there is a mind that is a separate entity i.e. independent of the brain and the whole living person?

The concept of the mind is that of an emergence from the co-ordinated activities of the brain, the body of the whole living person, the bacteria in the person's body and the environment plus the existence of the Universe.
If there is no living person with the proper brain activities and other essential activities, there is no independent mind as a separate entity to speak of.
Show me proof if otherwise?
commonsense
Posts: 2404
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by commonsense »

I am beginning to have difficulty following this thread. Please clarify for me: do you mean that an emergent is greater than the sum of its parts?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:30 am
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:38 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:02 am
I already stated the emergent consciousness of a person is not related solely to brain activities. Note I stated this;

So, I repeat myself replacing brain activity by mater activity: Again, for that, you need the person's response. That is true since you need to make a correlation between the person's consciousness and mater activity. The person can, however, be conscious but not able to respond. So I am afraid that your argument doesn't follow.
You are being too rhetoric here.

I had argued there are many states of consciousness.
A person can be in a deep coma and his state of consciousness is definitely different from wakeful consciousness.
In this case, the state of deep coma conscious has to be specifically defined.
You just cannot generalize consciousness in all cases.
Actually when a person is in deep coma, generally he is not regarded as 'conscious' as the term is understood generally.
As I mentioned a person in deep coma might be conscious but not able to respond. You need empirical evidence to show that the person is unconscious. You cannot measure consciousness directly. Your only evidence is based on person's response which this is an indirect measurement. This method is only applicable if the person is not in coma.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:30 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:02 am As I had stated, there is no mind-in-itself as an entity to be fed with inputs.
Like what is in a team, the mind emerges upon the co-ordinated activities of the brain, the body, the environment in time.

When the senses, say the eyes and visual cortex collect information, it is like accumulating information in a specific database and not for the mind per-se as an entity.
Btw, are you aware there is a bacterial community within your human system that collect information for itself and act interdependently. The information collected by these bacteria are not for a 'mind' of a human being.
However, the activities of the bacteria will effect what is supposedly the mental actions of the person, e.g. autism is linked to bacteria in the gut and intestines.

The mind emerges upon the interaction and co-ordination of all the relevant parties, i.e. the brain, the body, the bacteria, the environment, etc. come together simultaneously.
As such there is no input of information to a mind.

I suggest you try to reconcile the emergent mind to that of a computer system or robotic-mind.
There is no mind of the computer or robot. The microprocessor is not the mind. Within an emergent computer that works, there are the various parts and systems. A working emergent computer 'mind' only works when it is turned on and all the relevant parts work in a co-ordinated logical flow.
A computer has data input which is saved in various storage device to be called upon and these stored data can be moved from one media to another, thus it is not an input into a computer-mind.

I believe you are stuck with your dogmatic belief re a mind that is an entity because your views are too confined within a silo database.
And where is your counter-argument that the mind does not exist as a separate entity? You are just repeating yourself saying that the mind is an emergent property. I have a strong argument that the mind is a separate entity.
When all the brain activities stopped at death, there is no mind as a separate entity that exists.
Show me there is a mind that is a separate entity i.e. independent of the brain and the whole living person?

The concept of the mind is that of an emergence from the co-ordinated activities of the brain, the body of the whole living person, the bacteria in the person's body and the environment plus the existence of the Universe.
If there is no living person with the proper brain activities and other essential activities, there is no independent mind as a separate entity to speak of.
Show me proof if otherwise?
I have an argument in favor of mind. You just don't pay any hey on it.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman »

commonsense wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:41 pm I am beginning to have difficulty following this thread. Please clarify for me: do you mean that an emergent is greater than the sum of its parts?
There are two sorts of emergence in my opinion, weak and strong. The emergent property of the system is either a function of properties of parts or not. The first case is weak emergence and the second case is the strong emergence.

Mind, if we accept that it exists, must be an emergent thing/person in materialism since it has the ability to decide freely. So, it is not a property. Therefore, it cannot be an emergent property since property and thing/person are two different entities. Thing has properties. That is how thing and properties are related. This means that there cannot be an emergence of person since the emergence is only defined in terms of property. So they are a little confused.
commonsense
Posts: 2404
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by commonsense »

bahman wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:00 pm
commonsense wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:41 pm I am beginning to have difficulty following this thread. Please clarify for me: do you mean that an emergent is greater than the sum of its parts?
There are two sorts of emergence in my opinion, weak and strong. The emergent property of the system is either a function of properties of parts or not. The first case is weak emergence and the second case is the strong emergence.

Mind, if we accept that it exists, must be an emergent thing/person in materialism since it has the ability to decide freely. So, it is not a property. Therefore, it cannot be an emergent property since property and thing/person are two different entities. Thing has properties. That is how thing and properties are related. This means that there cannot be an emergence of person since the emergence is only defined in terms of property. So they are a little confused.
So there’s thing v. property and weak v. strong, eh?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman »

commonsense wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:16 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:00 pm
commonsense wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:41 pm I am beginning to have difficulty following this thread. Please clarify for me: do you mean that an emergent is greater than the sum of its parts?
There are two sorts of emergence in my opinion, weak and strong. The emergent property of the system is either a function of properties of parts or not. The first case is weak emergence and the second case is the strong emergence.

Mind, if we accept that it exists, must be an emergent thing/person in materialism since it has the ability to decide freely. So, it is not a property. Therefore, it cannot be an emergent property since property and thing/person are two different entities. Thing has properties. That is how thing and properties are related. This means that there cannot be an emergence of person since the emergence is only defined in terms of property. So they are a little confused.
So there’s thing v. property and weak v. strong, eh?
Almost. That is a new property that emerges in materialism. For example, water has a property, liquid, where hydrogen and oxygen don't have. Liquidity is emergence which is the result of combining oxygen and hydrogen. This emergent property, however, is a function of properties of parts, therefore it is a weak emergence. Physicists can explain the weak emergent property since physics is about the relation between properties. Strong emergence, like decision making where the emergence property is not a function of properties of parts.

Thing cannot emerge or be created. I have an argument for that: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28389.
commonsense
Posts: 2404
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by commonsense »

bahman wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:29 pm
commonsense wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:16 pm
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:00 pm
There are two sorts of emergence in my opinion, weak and strong. The emergent property of the system is either a function of properties of parts or not. The first case is weak emergence and the second case is the strong emergence.

Mind, if we accept that it exists, must be an emergent thing/person in materialism since it has the ability to decide freely. So, it is not a property. Therefore, it cannot be an emergent property since property and thing/person are two different entities. Thing has properties. That is how thing and properties are related. This means that there cannot be an emergence of person since the emergence is only defined in terms of property. So they are a little confused.
So there’s thing v. property and weak v. strong, eh?
Almost. That is a new property that emerges in materialism. For example, water has a property, liquid, where hydrogen and oxygen don't have. Liquidity is emergence which is the result of combining oxygen and hydrogen. This emergent property, however, is a function of properties of parts, therefore it is a weak emergence. Physicists can explain the weak emergent property since physics is about the relation between properties. Strong emergence, like decision making where the emergence property is not a function of properties of parts.

Thing cannot emerge or be created. I have an argument for that: .php?f=10&t=28389]
Thanks.

Btw, I read the free agent thread earlier. Good stuff.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:30 am
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:38 am
So, I repeat myself replacing brain activity by mater activity: Again, for that, you need the person's response. That is true since you need to make a correlation between the person's consciousness and mater activity. The person can, however, be conscious but not able to respond. So I am afraid that your argument doesn't follow.
You are being too rhetoric here.

I had argued there are many states of consciousness.
A person can be in a deep coma and his state of consciousness is definitely different from wakeful consciousness.
In this case, the state of deep coma conscious has to be specifically defined.
You just cannot generalize consciousness in all cases.
Actually when a person is in deep coma, generally he is not regarded as 'conscious' as the term is understood generally.
As I mentioned a person in deep coma might be conscious but not able to respond. You need empirical evidence to show that the person is unconscious. You cannot measure consciousness directly. Your only evidence is based on person's response which this is an indirect measurement. This method is only applicable if the person is not in coma.
Note what is 'coma';
Wiki wrote:A coma is a deep state of prolonged unconsciousness in which a person cannot be awakened; fails to respond normally to painful stimuli, light, or sound; lacks a normal wake-sleep cycle; and does not initiate voluntary actions.[1] Coma patients exhibit a complete absence of wakefulness and are unable to consciously feel, speak or move.[2] Comas can be derived by natural causes, or can be medically induced.
It is true in induced comas or certain states of coma, these people had reported they were 'conscious' while they were in the state of coma.

However there are states of coma where the person cannot be awakened at all.

In addition, there is a state where the person is in a vegetative state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persisten ... tive_state

Another state is brain death'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
In this case the brain is completely 'dead' but the person can be kept alive by life support systems.

In the case where the person cannot be awakened at all, it is impossible for any person in such state to wake to confirm whether they were "conscious" in those unconscious state.
Therefore your claim that a person who is unconscious normally can be 'conscious' is false.

I have argued there is no such thing as mind-in-itself or consciousness-in-itself, as such there is no way anyone can measure such a mind-in-itself or consciousness-in-itself.
It is ridiculously to claim, because consciousness cannot be measured directly [there is no such thing] that your claim is true.
Where is your proof the mind exists as an independent entity with its own consciousness?

The only way to measure consciousness is indirectly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale
The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a neurological scale which aims to give a reliable and objective way of recording the state of a person's consciousness for initial as well as subsequent assessment. A person is assessed against the criteria of the scale, and the resulting points give a person's score between 3 (indicating deep unconsciousness) and either 14 (original scale) or 15 (more widely used, modified or revised scale).
Whatever consciousness is measured in the above case, it is emerging from an emerging mind.

Note The Embodied Mind, where the authors argued there is no mind as an independent entity.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/embodied-mind
One of the main difficulties of the science of the mind is to explain how consciousness is possible without there being a transcendental Self that is the receptacle for all experience or a transcendental 'I' that accompanies all experience. The Embodied Mind blends insights from cognitive neuroscience and the Buddhist theory of mind to show how consciousness is possible without any self at all! The book is tremendously helpful in sparing us the illusion that there is a 'mind's 'I'.'
Image

Your "mind as an entity" is a groundless claim.
Your argument is based on rhetoric.
Btw, you did not quote any reference to support your claim.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman »

jayjacobus wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:31 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:32 pm The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind. We experience everything. Experience, however, is codded differently for each mind.
You are correct, sir.
Thanks.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman »

commonsense wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:23 am
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:29 pm
commonsense wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:16 pm

So there’s thing v. property and weak v. strong, eh?
Almost. That is a new property that emerges in materialism. For example, water has a property, liquid, where hydrogen and oxygen don't have. Liquidity is emergence which is the result of combining oxygen and hydrogen. This emergent property, however, is a function of properties of parts, therefore it is a weak emergence. Physicists can explain the weak emergent property since physics is about the relation between properties. Strong emergence, like decision making where the emergence property is not a function of properties of parts.

Thing cannot emerge or be created. I have an argument for that: .php?f=10&t=28389]
Thanks.

Btw, I read the free agent thread earlier. Good stuff.
You are very welcome.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3195
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by bahman »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 6:16 am
bahman wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:30 am
You are being too rhetoric here.

I had argued there are many states of consciousness.
A person can be in a deep coma and his state of consciousness is definitely different from wakeful consciousness.
In this case, the state of deep coma conscious has to be specifically defined.
You just cannot generalize consciousness in all cases.
Actually when a person is in deep coma, generally he is not regarded as 'conscious' as the term is understood generally.
As I mentioned a person in deep coma might be conscious but not able to respond. You need empirical evidence to show that the person is unconscious. You cannot measure consciousness directly. Your only evidence is based on person's response which this is an indirect measurement. This method is only applicable if the person is not in coma.
Note what is 'coma';
Wiki wrote:A coma is a deep state of prolonged unconsciousness in which a person cannot be awakened; fails to respond normally to painful stimuli, light, or sound; lacks a normal wake-sleep cycle; and does not initiate voluntary actions.[1] Coma patients exhibit a complete absence of wakefulness and are unable to consciously feel, speak or move.[2] Comas can be derived by natural causes, or can be medically induced.
It is true in induced comas or certain states of coma, these people had reported they were 'conscious' while they were in the state of coma.

However there are states of coma where the person cannot be awakened at all.

In addition, there is a state where the person is in a vegetative state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persisten ... tive_state

Another state is brain death'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death
In this case the brain is completely 'dead' but the person can be kept alive by life support systems.

In the case where the person cannot be awakened at all, it is impossible for any person in such state to wake to confirm whether they were "conscious" in those unconscious state.
Therefore your claim that a person who is unconscious normally can be 'conscious' is false.

I have argued there is no such thing as mind-in-itself or consciousness-in-itself, as such there is no way anyone can measure such a mind-in-itself or consciousness-in-itself.
It is ridiculously to claim, because consciousness cannot be measured directly [there is no such thing] that your claim is true.
Where is your proof the mind exists as an independent entity with its own consciousness?

The only way to measure consciousness is indirectly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Coma_Scale
The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a neurological scale which aims to give a reliable and objective way of recording the state of a person's consciousness for initial as well as subsequent assessment. A person is assessed against the criteria of the scale, and the resulting points give a person's score between 3 (indicating deep unconsciousness) and either 14 (original scale) or 15 (more widely used, modified or revised scale).
Whatever consciousness is measured in the above case, it is emerging from an emerging mind.

Note The Embodied Mind, where the authors argued there is no mind as an independent entity.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/embodied-mind
One of the main difficulties of the science of the mind is to explain how consciousness is possible without there being a transcendental Self that is the receptacle for all experience or a transcendental 'I' that accompanies all experience. The Embodied Mind blends insights from cognitive neuroscience and the Buddhist theory of mind to show how consciousness is possible without any self at all! The book is tremendously helpful in sparing us the illusion that there is a 'mind's 'I'.'
Image

Your "mind as an entity" is a groundless claim.
Your argument is based on rhetoric.
Btw, you did not quote any reference to support your claim.
If you define the state of coma as a state that person doesn't experience then it means that the brain doesn't provide any input to mind. As I mentioned I have a proof for existence of mind that you can find it in here.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:13 am If you define the state of coma as a state that person doesn't experience then it means that the brain doesn't provide any input to mind. As I mentioned I have a proof for existence of mind that you can find it in here.
The brain is a critical part and parcel of a spontaneous emergent mind.
If the brain is dead, then there is no emergent mind.
As such there is no emergent mind at all in this case.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4450
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The duty of the brain is to provide inputs to the mind

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

bahman wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:13 am If you define the state of coma as a state that person doesn't experience then it means that the brain doesn't provide any input to mind. As I mentioned I have a proof for existence of mind that you can find it in here.
Consider a change in a system, X to Y where X and Y are two different states of affair. X has to vanishes before Y is caused.
There is, however, nothing when X vanishes and nothing cannot possibly cause Y.
Therefore, there must exist a mind that has ability to experience and cause.
here
Your argument is baseless and groundless.

According to Hume, he agreed there is a "mind" to experience that cause and effect.
But according to Hume, that mind that experience is an emergent mind not a mind as an independent entity.
Bundle theory, originated by the 18th century Scottish philosopher David Hume, is the ontological theory about objecthood in which an object consists only of a collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.

According to bundle theory, an object consists of its properties and nothing more: thus neither can there be an object without properties nor can one even conceive of such an object; for example, bundle theory claims that thinking of an apple compels one also to think of its color, its shape, the fact that it is a kind of fruit, its cells, its taste, or at least one other of its properties. Thus, the theory asserts that the apple is no more than the collection of its properties. In particular, there is no substance in which the properties are inherent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundle_theory
Hume's Bundle Theory claims there is no mind or self as an entity.
Both are merely a bundle of activities -collection (bundle) of properties, relations or tropes.

To ensure any credibility of your claim, you'll need to prove Hume is wrong.
Post Reply