Posted by John Tchoe on July 03, 19101 at 13:51:27:

In Reply to: Re: Brain = mind, sort of. posted by Noctillucent on July 02, 19101 at 23:38:55:

: I form the idea of an apple. The appearance of that idea is red and round. The idea is NOT a physical apple. If it was, and the idea was inside my brain, I would instantly die.

<JT>Obviously, and this is nothing like my claims. Please stop misinterpreting my words. I am not saying that a physical apple gets teleported into your brain when you think of one. Take this last sentence at face value, and quit putting words into my mouth.</JT>

: Now, my cortex IS that idea of an apple or it IS NOT (law of excluded middle).

: If it is, then my cortex IS in fact an idea, which at the moment appears red and round. And like all ideas, my cortex is a first person fact.

: No materialist believes this. And I don’t think you do either.

<JT>You're missing the implication of what I meant. Your cortex doesn't change its material when you form an idea. It doesn't cease to be a cortex. Its arrangement changes. That change in arrangement is literally an idea. Hence, "the mind is the brain...sort of." The "sort of" comes from the fact that we are able to consider the two separately.</JT>

: Consequently, my cortex is NOT an idea, but a physical object. This makes it essentially unlike my idea of an apple, or indeed any idea at all.

<JT>Correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation, but you seem unable to get away from the idea that ideas are not immaterial, floating, existing things.

Think of it this way, for simplicity's sake. The hard drive in your computer doesn't change into an apple when you write a .jpeg of an apple o it. There are some internal changes made on the hard drive. Same with your brain.</JT>

: Their relationship, then, if in fact they have any relationship at all, is one either of causality (the cortex CAUSES the mind), or, one of mutual interaction. Unless you want to say the mind CAUSES the cortex, no other logical option exists.

<JT>"Mutual interaction," which hasn't been brought up thus far, is another facet to my interpretation. See? That was not one of the three choices you offered me. I merely said that "The brain is the mind" was the closest to what I believe.

Still, I have some problems even with that definition, because it umes that the mind and the brain can operate independently to effect changes upon each other.

Any changes in the mind, i.e., any thought, IS a change in the brain. Any change in the brain is a change in the mind, though it may not be consciously known.

It is very difficult to communicate to you why I stick with my phrase "The mind is the brain, the brain is the mind," because you don't seem willing to let go of the mind as an immaterial, separate, independent entity.

How about an ogy: You see the mind and the brain as a steering wheel and a car. When the steering wheel turns, the car turns. When the car hits some rough terrain, the steering wheel trembles accordingly. So the two things have a very strong relationship, BUT

if you break the steering column, the two begin to operate independently.

This is impossible within the materialist framework of the brain. There is no steering wheel and car. There is only...a steeringwheelcar. You can't break one without breaking the other, because the two are inseparable.</JT>

: All of these have big problems. However, if you are going to continue to say that the mind IS the cortex, but concede they are somehow different, then your argument is guilty of equivocation, and is logically invalid.

<JT>They are "somehow different" in that we can consider them separately. But it's like taking the stripes off the zebra, only more so.</JT>

: Words mean things. In logical argument they must mean things consistently. If you do not use words in a clear and consistent way, then there is simply no point in debate.

<JT>We're not even at the argument stage yet. We're trying to get our definitions spelled out, and you're refusing or failing to accept my premise.</JT>

: If you can state it in a way that doesn't use words that imply a confused and opposite meaning, please do so.

<JT>Well, I'm trying. It's difficult, though, because these aren't ideas I use on an everyday basis, and we're working from two entirely different frameworks.

I have a suggestion for moving our conversation forward. Ontological arguments are useless and an endless source of frustration. Why not consider the implications of our mutually exclusive premises?

What IF the mind was separate from the brain?

What IF the mind was (inspearable from) the brain?

When a neurologist stimulates different portions of the brain, it causes the patient to recall vivid memories. If the mind were separable from the brain, one could choose notn to have these recollections, right?</JT>

Follow Ups:

• Re: Material vs. arrangement. Noctillucent 20:16:20 7/03/101 (11)
  • Now we're getting somewhere! John Tchoe 03:24:38 7/04/101 (10)
    • Whoa Noctillucent 20:09:22 7/05/101 (4)
      • There is no spoon. John Tchoe 12:04:12 7/06/101 (3)
        • Re: There is no spoon. Noctillucent 07:36:39 7/10/101 (2)
          • One step forward, two steps back. John Tchoe 12:39:22 7/10/101 (1)
            • My reply at the top. Noctillucent 09:14:56 7/13/101 (0)
    • Re: Now we're getting somewhere! John Tchoe 03:31:56 7/04/101 (4)
      • Re: Now we're getting somewhere! Noctillucent 20:18:11 7/05/101 (3)
        • Psychology. John Tchoe 12:08:44 7/06/101 (2)
          • Re: Psychology. Noctillucent 18:47:30 7/12/101 (1)
            • Re: Psychology. John Tchoe 15:05:24 7/13/101 (0)

Post a Followup