The brain does not generate the mind: scientific proof

[mmarco]

I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological.
My argument proves that brain processes are not a sufficient condition for the existence of consciousness, which existence implies the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.

Preliminary considerations: the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Similar considerations can be made for a sequence of elementary processes; sequence is a subjective and abstract concept.

Consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, therefore consciousness cannot itself be an abstract concept. (Obviously we can conceive the concept of consciousness, but the concept of consciousness is not actual consciousness)
(With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).

From the above considerations it followes that only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, and consequently consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience.

Some clarifications (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more details)

The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics.
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea, and not to an actual physical entity.

Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. However, an emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess; my arguments prove that this definition implies that emergent properties are only subjective abstract concepts and therefore, cosnciousness cannot be an emergent property.
Actually, all the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described directly by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality).

In other words, emergence is nothing but a cognitive construct that is applied onto matter for taxonomy purposes, and cognition itself can only come from a conscious mind; so emergence can never explain consciousness as it is, in itself, implied by consciousness. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting.


Marco Biagini

[VVilliam]

Split-Brain Syndrome.

Social Processing.

Sol and Earth exist and physically interact. (Why do we even give names to these stones?)
Consciousness and Brains exist and also interact.

Humans have believed that Sol revolves around the Earth.
Humans now have access to information which shows them that the truth is the Earth revolves around Sol.

The truth also is that Sol is revolving around other objects in the Galaxy, which altogether (the Galaxy) is revolving around some unknown thing in and of itself (as far as we can tell.)

Re "Evolving". (Obituaries.)



I think that (in a similar manner) what we humans presume about the brain and consciousness has it that some "believe" that Consciousness "revolves" around Brain, while other "believe" Brain "revolves" around Consciousness.

At this point, there is no consensus (among the "believers") which is "real" due to the rather tricky undertaking for Consciousness to "prove" to "itself" that "it" is "Real".

Some "believers" claim that the bridge over the Void of Death is "out" (does not exist) and that is the end of "you" "forever" or "until "God" decides whether you "live" or "stay dead".



I guess "we" will cross that bridge if "we" come to it.

For now "we" are stuck with the data we do have available to "us"

Curious: Split Brain

The voices in my head