Almost Nothing is Known about the Brain &

[Veritas Aequitas]

What I don't agree with your point is the unqualified declaration 'We know NOTHING about the brain!' which is very ridiculous in the common conventional sense.

Since you are so obstinate with your view, I reckon you must referring to something that is unconventional, i.e. 'nothingness' as in Buddhism or perhaps Socrates "I know that I know nothing."

In absolute terms, we are incapable of knowing anything, but even in relative terms, what we can know is mish-mash, at best. And although we use this witch's brew containing [among other delicacies] intellectual eye-of-newt, and it does [on some level] provide service to our daily lives, it also leads to a great deal of consternation.

Soooo...it seems reasonable to this observer that minimizing the use of such a flawed tool can only be beneficial [and I have found that to be the case]. You can try to dig you way out of a cave with a grapefruit spoon but it probably won't work very well. Why not seek a better way?

If you are so suspicious of the knowledge humanity had gained in relative terms had not benefitted humanity, you are living in a weird world.
Yes, there are pros and cons to every knowledge, but I believe the pros of the ongoing increasing trend of knowledge is a net-pro [slight or otherwise] over the cons.

For example if we had not sufficient knowledge of the Covid19 virus and other viruses, the human population could be decimated to a very small number by now, since we will be ignorant and will not be invoking preventive measures nor invent some vaccines against the virus.
Since human beings emerged into the world, humanity has acquired so much useful knowledge that has facilitated its survival optimally. There obviously are the cons but as I had stated the pros so far is outweighing the cons.

Personally, assuming you are the average person, note,

Between 1800 and 2000 life expectancy at birth rose from about 30 years to a global average of 67 years, and to more than 75 years in favored countries. This dramatic change was called a health transition, characterized by a transition both in how long people expected to live, and how they expected to die.”
https://learn.age-up.com/blog/a-brief-h ... longevity/#:

As average, you would have benefited from the above which is correlated the increasing relative knowledge in those years.

Those who rejected the above benefits would likely have committed suicide in their early age.

In addition, a realist's position would not jive with Zen's stance on reality.

And what is your appreciation of, "Zen's stance of reality?"

Personally I am not into Zen and its practices but I am pro with Zen's theories.
Here is a quickie re Zen's stance of reality.

Nothing Explained: Zen Wisdom On The Emptiness Of Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJZ8W9mb7eA

[Veritas Aequitas]

The only thing that we can confirm is that there is a correlation between the matter process in the brain and experience. We don't know how consciousness arises. We don't know how we do memorize and retrieve the memory. We don't know how do we think...

We definitely know a lot about how the brain works.

We know a lot about how memory works and that is why those who are knowledgeable of how memory works could abuse it to brainwash other people.

Initially neuroscientists learn a lot about the brain via brain lesions and noted certain humans are unable to perform certain mental functions in correspondence to certain parts of the brain that are damaged. This knowledge is reinforced with repeated events. The most common is those from patients who suffered from stroke.

Subsequently neuroscientists used electrodes to trigger various parts of the parts to find out what they are responsible for.

Now neuroscientists can track mental activities with fMRI imagings.

The above knowledge of how the brain works is not of high precision, but the trend forwards is toward higher and higher precision.

Knowing the hard problem is complex but without exact knowledge of that, you cannot deny [on blanket basis] neuroscientists are in generally ignorant of how the brain works.

We definitely do not know how the brain works. All we know is the correlation between some mental phenomena and matter process in the brain.

Your views and approach is not effective, i.e. by presuming there must be independent ways how the brain really works.
E.g. theists presume God created the world and put it to work with God's specifications of how it work. Then it is up to human to discover how it works as specified by God. This the Newtonian approach to understand the reality of the world.

This is the same methodology you want to apply to understand how the human brain works, but such a Newtonian methodology is outdated and do not apply to higher levels of reality such as those related to Einstein and QM, and the complexity of the human brain.

Self and Consciousness | Prof. Anil Seth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6V4MJkoSGQ
As Anil Seth and others proposed, we should approach the complexity of the brain [consciousness, mind, etc.] from its effects and work backward to its roots with no insistence there is 'the only an only way' of how the brain work.

Because your approach is bottom-up rather than top-down, you will always insist "We definitely do not know how the brain works" eternally.

Rather, the correct approach is,
we do know how the brain works [consciousness, mind, etc.] but subject to the following conditions ......
The test is whether whatever is tested work repetitively or not.
For example, we understand how pain emerged in the brain and most of the time the ingestion of recommended Aspirin tablets will alleviate the mental pain.
It is the same with how we use anesthetic to put a person into coma/sleep in a surgery.

[bahman]

We definitely do not know how the brain works. All we know is the correlation between some mental phenomena and matter process in the brain.

That is EXACTLY how we know all the science we know; correlations between phenomena and process. WIth this knowledge we have healthcare, space travel and mass communications.

Do you know how do you think?

[bahman]

We definitely know a lot about how the brain works.

We know a lot about how memory works and that is why those who are knowledgeable of how memory works could abuse it to brainwash other people.

Initially neuroscientists learn a lot about the brain via brain lesions and noted certain humans are unable to perform certain mental functions in correspondence to certain parts of the brain that are damaged. This knowledge is reinforced with repeated events. The most common is those from patients who suffered from stroke.

Subsequently neuroscientists used electrodes to trigger various parts of the parts to find out what they are responsible for.

Now neuroscientists can track mental activities with fMRI imagings.

The above knowledge of how the brain works is not of high precision, but the trend forwards is toward higher and higher precision.

Knowing the hard problem is complex but without exact knowledge of that, you cannot deny [on blanket basis] neuroscientists are in generally ignorant of how the brain works.

We definitely do not know how the brain works. All we know is the correlation between some mental phenomena and matter process in the brain.

Your views and approach is not effective, i.e. by presuming there must be independent ways how the brain really works.
E.g. theists presume God created the world and put it to work with God's specifications of how it work. Then it is up to human to discover how it works as specified by God. This the Newtonian approach to understand the reality of the world.

This is the same methodology you want to apply to understand how the human brain works, but such a Newtonian methodology is outdated and do not apply to higher levels of reality such as those related to Einstein and QM, and the complexity of the human brain.

Self and Consciousness | Prof. Anil Seth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6V4MJkoSGQ
As Anil Seth and others proposed, we should approach the complexity of the brain [consciousness, mind, etc.] from its effects and work backward to its roots with no insistence there is 'the only an only way' of how the brain work.

Because your approach is bottom-up rather than top-down, you will always insist "We definitely do not know how the brain works" eternally.

Rather, the correct approach is,
we do know how the brain works [consciousness, mind, etc.] but subject to the following conditions ......
The test is whether whatever is tested work repetitively or not.
For example, we understand how pain emerged in the brain and most of the time the ingestion of recommended Aspirin tablets will alleviate the mental pain.
It is the same with how we use anesthetic to put a person into coma/sleep in a surgery.

Again, we do not know how mental phenomena arise from the matter process in the brain. There are of course two methods for studying any phenomenon, top-down and bottom-up but these methods only tell you what is the relation between the properties of the parts and the proprieties of the whole. In the case of materialism, the whole is claimed that has properties that parts do not have, such as consciousness, which means that there is no relation between the properties of parts and the properties of the whole which is absurd. That is absurd since science is about the studying of relation between things. You simply believe in magic without knowing it.

[Sculptor]

We definitely do not know how the brain works. All we know is the correlation between some mental phenomena and matter process in the brain.

That is EXACTLY how we know all the science we know; correlations between phenomena and process. WIth this knowledge we have healthcare, space travel and mass communications.

Do you know how do you think?

More than you it seems

[simplicity]

For example if we had not sufficient knowledge of the Covid19 virus and other viruses, the human population could be decimated to a very small number by now, since we will be ignorant and will not be invoking preventive measures nor invent some vaccines against the virus.
Since human beings emerged into the world, humanity has acquired so much useful knowledge that has facilitated its survival optimally. There obviously are the cons but as I had stated the pros so far is outweighing the cons.

Your knowledge of the history health issues is not so great and I really don't want to get into it at the moment. Perhaps another time.

Personally, assuming you are the average person, note,

Between 1800 and 2000 life expectancy at birth rose from about 30 years to a global average of 67 years, and to more than 75 years in favored countries. This dramatic change was called a health transition, characterized by a transition both in how long people expected to live, and how they expected to die.”
https://learn.age-up.com/blog/a-brief-h ... longevity/#:

As average, you would have benefited from the above which is correlated the increasing relative knowledge in those years.

According to your rationale, people living in the 2300's [if they live to be 125yo] will feel as if our lives were horrible, as well. Life was no doubt more difficult but I am not so sure that's all bad.

Personally I am not into Zen and its practices but I am pro with Zen's theories.
Here is a quickie re Zen's stance of reality.

Nothing Explained: Zen Wisdom On The Emptiness Of Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJZ8W9mb7eA

I am not interested in a Zen video. I was interested in your opinion.

And, btw, there is no Zen "theory." Zen is meditation only.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, we do not know how mental phenomena arise from the matter process in the brain. There are of course two methods for studying any phenomenon, top-down and bottom-up but these methods only tell you what is the relation between the properties of the parts and the proprieties of the whole. In the case of materialism, the whole is claimed that has properties that parts do not have, such as consciousness, which means that there is no relation between the properties of parts and the properties of the whole which is absurd. That is absurd since science is about the studying of relation between things. You simply believe in magic without knowing it.

Your problem [re bottom up] is you have already define the issue is such a way there is no way you will ever know the answer [have knowledge] that is certain.
In this case you are bankrupting your own thinking because there is no certainty in knowledge.

In the case of a top-down approach [mine is not materialism but rather empirical realism], we first recognize consciousness exists and define it based on whatever empirical evidences we have plus relying on rational philosophical inferences.
In a top-down approach, we are not interested in what is exactly or certainly at the bottom, i.e. from its origin to its manifestations.

From a top-down approach we can study and understand the relations easily between consciousness and its related variables. Since I am not a materialist, there is no question of any absolute 'matter' in this case.
Obviously consciousness is related to the brain, because if we remove the human brain, there would be no human consciousness.

Neuroscientists are well aware damage to specific parts of the human brain, the person will lose consciousness.
While asleep the person will lose wakeful consciousness, etc.
Performing certain actions and developing the brain will increase the degree of consciousness which is positive for humanity.
There is so much relations between human consciousness and within the person plus his environment, so how can you insists there are no 'relations' we can know of that would be of use to the person and humanity?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Personally, assuming you are the average person, note,

Between 1800 and 2000 life expectancy at birth rose from about 30 years to a global average of 67 years, and to more than 75 years in favored countries. This dramatic change was called a health transition, characterized by a transition both in how long people expected to live, and how they expected to die.”
https://learn.age-up.com/blog/a-brief-h ... longevity/#:

As average, you would have benefited from the above which is correlated the increasing relative knowledge in those years.

According to your rationale, people living in the 2300's [if they live to be 125yo] will feel as if our lives were horrible, as well. Life was no doubt more difficult but I am not so sure that's all bad.

You have missed the point.
The point is, it is the fact that humans know and have incremental knowledge as they evolve from t1 to t2, thus will benefit from whatever inherited incremental knowledge from any t1 to t2 period.

Personally I am not into Zen and its practices but I am pro with Zen's theories.
Here is a quickie re Zen's stance of reality.

Nothing Explained: Zen Wisdom On The Emptiness Of Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJZ8W9mb7eA

I am not interested in a Zen video. I was interested in your opinion.

And, btw, there is no Zen "theory." Zen is meditation only.

There are two schools of Zen, i.e. the Southern and the Northern School.

The Southern School adopts the sudden approach while the Northern School adopt the gradual approach.

The Southern School claimed they don't need 'theory' because whatever that is 'Zen' to them happen 'suddenly'.
Despite such a claim of 'sudden_ness' I believe the role of 'theory' still plays a part in it somehow. That one adopt 'no theory' is a theory itself.

Absolute 'sudden_ness' do happen which is obvious in cases for those who take hallucinogen, brain-damage, out-of-the-blue without intention, etc.
The case of Jill Bolte sudden '"Zen" liked experience due to a severe stroke.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_ta ... anguage=en

In the case of the Northern School it has much 'theory'.
But of course, what is central to both schools is Zen Meditation.

[bahman]

That is EXACTLY how we know all the science we know; correlations between phenomena and process. WIth this knowledge we have healthcare, space travel and mass communications.

Do you know how do you think?

More than you it seems

You are evading my question. How?

[bahman]

Again, we do not know how mental phenomena arise from the matter process in the brain. There are of course two methods for studying any phenomenon, top-down and bottom-up but these methods only tell you what is the relation between the properties of the parts and the proprieties of the whole. In the case of materialism, the whole is claimed that has properties that parts do not have, such as consciousness, which means that there is no relation between the properties of parts and the properties of the whole which is absurd. That is absurd since science is about the studying of relation between things. You simply believe in magic without knowing it.

Your problem [re bottom up] is you have already define the issue is such a way there is no way you will ever know the answer [have knowledge] that is certain.
In this case you are bankrupting your own thinking because there is no certainty in knowledge.

In the case of a top-down approach [mine is not materialism but rather empirical realism], we first recognize consciousness exists and define it based on whatever empirical evidences we have plus relying on rational philosophical inferences.
In a top-down approach, we are not interested in what is exactly or certainly at the bottom, i.e. from its origin to its manifestations.

From a top-down approach we can study and understand the relations easily between consciousness and its related variables. Since I am not a materialist, there is no question of any absolute 'matter' in this case.
Obviously consciousness is related to the brain, because if we remove the human brain, there would be no human consciousness.

Neuroscientists are well aware damage to specific parts of the human brain, the person will lose consciousness.
While asleep the person will lose wakeful consciousness, etc.
Performing certain actions and developing the brain will increase the degree of consciousness which is positive for humanity.
There is so much relations between human consciousness and within the person plus his environment, so how can you insists there are no 'relations' we can know of that would be of use to the person and humanity?

Do you believe that atoms exist in the brain? From the top-down approach, we know that the brain is conscious. What is the relation between the whole and parts? Are parts conscious or not?

[Sculptor]

Do you know how do you think?

More than you it seems

You are evading my question. How?

Science knows plenty about how the brain works.
The problem with the thread is that you do not know that because you have not looked into it.
You are making an argument from ignorance.

Perhaps you would like to start here. None of this was know until relatively recently
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/ ... -the-brain
When you have the basics, why not look at the history of the progress in brain studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ern_period
Then read the following.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain
When you have aquainted yourself with the basics then come back and argue your point.

[simplicity]

You have missed the point.
The point is, it is the fact that humans know and have incremental knowledge as they evolve from t1 to t2, thus will benefit from whatever inherited incremental knowledge from any t1 to t2 period.

Equal amount of good and bad in everything.

In the case of the Northern School it has much 'theory'.
But of course, what is central to both schools is Zen Meditation.

I see you are an expert in Zen, as well.

It's paradoxical that those most attracted to Zen [in the West] are highly intellectual folks as it is relinquishing of the [intellectual] ego that allows one to transcend. All "Zen theory" is superfluous as it is simply pointing to meditation as The Way.

[owl of Minerva]

It is the case that almost nothing is known about the brain. If it is studied in isolation it could be difficult to understand how it relates to the whole of what we perceive as reality. The brain/mind could be compared to a computer with hardware and software, gross physical matter encasing software: the finer forces of nature, one of which is the sense mind. The five outer senses through sense organs that relate to the five outer elemental forces are more easily comprehended. The subtle inner three, sense mind, intelligence, and individuality/ego are invisible in function and harder to grasp. The brain/mind/organism in relation to the universe could be the equivalent of a transistor radio compared to a boom box. As for consciousness it is unlikely that it is elemental. How it works with the whole could be analogous to how a programmer works with a program, or how a dreamer experiences a dream.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, we do not know how mental phenomena arise from the matter process in the brain. There are of course two methods for studying any phenomenon, top-down and bottom-up but these methods only tell you what is the relation between the properties of the parts and the proprieties of the whole. In the case of materialism, the whole is claimed that has properties that parts do not have, such as consciousness, which means that there is no relation between the properties of parts and the properties of the whole which is absurd. That is absurd since science is about the studying of relation between things. You simply believe in magic without knowing it.

Your problem [re bottom up] is you have already define the issue is such a way there is no way you will ever know the answer [have knowledge] that is certain.
In this case you are bankrupting your own thinking because there is no certainty in knowledge.

In the case of a top-down approach [mine is not materialism but rather empirical realism], we first recognize consciousness exists and define it based on whatever empirical evidences we have plus relying on rational philosophical inferences.
In a top-down approach, we are not interested in what is exactly or certainly at the bottom, i.e. from its origin to its manifestations.

From a top-down approach we can study and understand the relations easily between consciousness and its related variables. Since I am not a materialist, there is no question of any absolute 'matter' in this case.
Obviously consciousness is related to the brain, because if we remove the human brain, there would be no human consciousness.

Neuroscientists are well aware damage to specific parts of the human brain, the person will lose consciousness.
While asleep the person will lose wakeful consciousness, etc.
Performing certain actions and developing the brain will increase the degree of consciousness which is positive for humanity.
There is so much relations between human consciousness and within the person plus his environment, so how can you insists there are no 'relations' we can know of that would be of use to the person and humanity?

Do you believe that atoms exist in the brain? From the top-down approach, we know that the brain is conscious. What is the relation between the whole and parts? Are parts conscious or not?

Are there absolute parts in the first place.
Atoms are supposedly parts of molecules which are part of solid things we perceive.
Sub-atomic particles [quarks, Higgs Boson] are supposedly part of atoms.

But so far, Physicists has not been able to discover what is the final absolute part of things.
At some point what is part is relative, i.e. either it is a particle or wave depending on human interactions.
This is a refutation of your bottom-up approach because you essentially don't have an absolute 'bottom' to 'up' with.

This is why the most plausible understanding of what is consciousness is to start with what we can infer from the empirical evidences of consciousness as I had highlighted earlier.

Btw, what is the purpose and reason of your quest [an impossibility] to find the relation of consciousness to its ultimate parts?
My answer to the above is you are driven by a desperate psychology to find the ultimate answer [an impossibility]. Can you counter this?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the case of the Northern School it has much 'theory'.
But of course, what is central to both schools is Zen Meditation.

I see you are an expert in Zen, as well.

It's paradoxical that those most attracted to Zen [in the West] are highly intellectual folks as it is relinquishing of the [intellectual] ego that allows one to transcend. All "Zen theory" is superfluous as it is simply pointing to meditation as The Way.

I am a reasonable expert in Buddhism-proper in totality.
Zen is merely a fringe sect of Buddhism-proper.

Btw, I am from the East.
There is theory everywhere, but as the Buddha stated, one must leave the raft when one has reached the shore.

• "The raft parable appears in the Alagaddupama (Water Snake Simile) Sutta of the Sutta-pitaka (Majjhima Nikaya 22). In this sutta, the Buddha discusses the importance of learning the dharma properly and the danger of clinging to views."

What is critical with Buddhism is always the practice, the Noble-8-Fold-Path where one of the path is meditation.

I am not with any specific beliefs but has my own electic theory and practice, filtered and gleaned from the wide range theories and practices.