Christianity

[henry quirk]

How about this ...

If in a NDE or OBE you can understand and comprehend, apparently without using your brain, then what is the function or purpose of a brain?

The physical brain cannot support the "emergence" of a mind, so a mind is necessary over and above the physical brain (with which it interacts).

Interacts in what way?

These ideas that you present suggest that eyes, ears, brains, etc are not necessary at all.

It's the rope-a-dope, Harry.

Folks who can't explain how brain (a conglomeration of unconscious particles) produces mind, who dance hard to avoid such explanations, or who readily admit -- as Phyllo and Big Mike have -- they don't know, are quick to demand explanations of how mind, as sumthin' other than brain, does what it does, and are quick to dismiss any answer as fanciful.

Don't let 'em hug the ropes, Harry.

[Harbal]

Right. And yet we find ourselves in this reality, in which we have bodily eyes, ears, and brains the senses of which are replicated (but even better) when out of body. You can deny it, or you can try to understand it. Do I completely understand it? No. But, for better or worse, this is the way it is.

Why do you think this is the way it is? You have probably explained why and I have missed it.

[phyllo]

So as to exchange information and directives, etc.

Exchange what information/directives for what purpose?

Right. And yet we find ourselves in this reality, in which we have bodily eyes, ears, and brains the senses of which are replicated (but even better) when out of body. You can deny it, or you can try to understand it. Do I completely understand it? No. But, for better or worse, this is the way it is.

Why "replicated"? If the non-physical organs are better than the physical ones and they can be used in a physical world, then the physical body and organs seem to serve no useful purpose. Why even have a physical body?

[phyllo]

Folks who can't explain how brain (a conglomeration of unconscious particles) produces mind, who dance hard to avoid such explanations, or who readily admit -- as Phyllo and Big Mike have -- they don't know, are quick to demand explanations of how mind, as sumthin' other than brain, does what it does, and are quick to dismiss any answer as fanciful.

Actually, I did say what "mind" is.

I didn't explain how unconscious particles produce consciousness.

HB seems to have invested some time and energy into studying this so I'm curious how he resolves some of the questions that naturally arise.

[Harry Baird]

It's the rope-a-dope, Harry.

Folks who can't explain how brain (a conglomeration of unconscious particles) produces mind, who dance hard to avoid such explanations, or who readily admit -- as Phyllo and Big Mike have -- they don't know, are quick to demand explanations of how mind, as sumthin' other than brain, does what it does, and are quick to dismiss any answer as fanciful.

Don't let 'em hug the ropes, Harry.

Thanks for the reminder, hq. Folks like BigMike refuse to respond to argument and evidence, but then demand that we respond to their mere assertion. Thus, they act as though it is we who are on the ropes, rather than them.

[Harry Baird]

Right. And yet we find ourselves in this reality, in which we have bodily eyes, ears, and brains the senses of which are replicated (but even better) when out of body. You can deny it, or you can try to understand it. Do I completely understand it? No. But, for better or worse, this is the way it is.

Why do you think this is the way it is? You have probably explained why and I have missed it.

Yep, I explained it already here: viewtopic.php?p=591525#p591525

[henry quirk]

Folks who can't explain how brain (a conglomeration of unconscious particles) produces mind, who dance hard to avoid such explanations, or who readily admit -- as Phyllo and Big Mike have -- they don't know, are quick to demand explanations of how mind, as sumthin' other than brain, does what it does, and are quick to dismiss any answer as fanciful.

Actually, I did say what "mind" is.

I didn't explain how unconscious particles produce consciousness.

HB seems to have invested some time and energy into studying this so I'm curious how he resolves some of the questions that naturally arise.

This...

"Brain" is one physical organ. "Mind" is an abstraction which combines brain function, memory, experience, hormones, etc to account for a person's behavior.

...means nuthin' without an explanation of how unconscious electrons, neutrons, and protons come together and become conscious.

You and Big Mike are rope-a-dopin'.

[Harry Baird]

So as to exchange information and directives, etc.

Exchange what information/directives for what purpose?

That's like asking what the purpose of life is. If I knew, I'd tell you. But, more proximally, the answer is: for the purposes of living in concordance with one's will in this reality.

Right. And yet we find ourselves in this reality, in which we have bodily eyes, ears, and brains the senses of which are replicated (but even better) when out of body. You can deny it, or you can try to understand it. Do I completely understand it? No. But, for better or worse, this is the way it is.

Why "replicated"? If the non-physical organs are better than the physical ones and they can be used in a physical world, then the physical body and organs seem to serve no useful purpose. Why even have a physical body?

That's about the third time you've repeated essentially the exact same question, and I can't answer it any better than I already have: I don't know, but, nevertheless, it is the way it is.

But since you persist, let me offer a possibility that some folk believe (I am not convinced, but it's at least the sort of idea that some folk entertain):

We incarnate into material reality from an immaterial realm because it offers us great opportunities for learning and spiritual growth that we could not have access to in the safe, loving, immaterial realm which is our true home.

I know, it's far from ideal that I have to share a possibility that I don't endorse myself, but at least it's something...

In any case, a more relevant question, it seems to me, is: could we have a conscious (mental) life with only a physical brain/body, but no mind? The obvious answer is: no, of course not. Thus, it seems to me that our "natural" state is in the immaterial realms, rather than the material realms - but as to why we transfer from one to the other, I freely admit that I don't know, even though the evidence demonstrates that it is the case.

[phyllo]

You and Big Mike are rope-a-dopin'.

If you think that I'm doing something inappropriate for a philosophy forum, then say so outright and I will consider stopping.

[Immanuel Can]

And minds, as I was saying, are not physical entities, but non-physical ones. So non-physical entities can be real.

Nope...There's no such idea as a non-physical entity.

An “idea” is a non-physical entity. So is a “mind,” and “reason,” and “consciousness,” and “identity,” and a whole bunch of other things.

So if there’s no such thing, then “you’re” not talking to “me,” and nothing “you” say can possibly be a “communication” or “rational,” or “make sense” or “signify” anything. And there is nothing “wrong” or “right” about that.

Your claim refutes itself, and thus I don’t need to bother.

[phyllo]

An “idea” is a non-physical entity. So is a “mind,” and “reason,” and “consciousness,” and “identity,” and a whole bunch of other things.

One can say that those are not entities.

[Immanuel Can]

An “idea” is a non-physical entity. So is a “mind,” and “reason,” and “consciousness,” and “identity,” and a whole bunch of other things.

One can say that those are not entities.

Well, only by defining “entity” as “that which is merely physical,” which is an assumption, not an argument. What’s evident is that we use these allegedly unreal “entities” all the time, just as you and I are doing at this very moment. So how we can be so reliant on something that somebody is insisting is “unreal” is a really good question.

[Immanuel Can]

You and Big Mike are rope-a-dopin'.

If you think that I'm doing something inappropriate for a philosophy forum, then say so outright and I will consider stopping.

The “rope-a-dope” is a technique invented by boxer Mo Ali, in one of his famous fights. It involves sitting back on the ropes of the ring, with one’s hands up to protect vulnerable areas, and absorbing as much punching and punishment as the opponent can deal out, without fighting back, until the opponent wears himself out.

The danger, as happened with Ali, is that you’ll get punched viciously. You might win the fight eventually, but you’ll have absorbed so much damage that there might not be much left of you…just as Ali was brain-damaged by having been hit so often.

So it’s not “inappropriate.” But it is going to get you punched into oblivion. That’s what Henry is pointing out to you…that you’re not putting up a good fight, just asking others to keep hitting you, and hoping they’ll get tired.

[phyllo]

An “idea” is a non-physical entity. So is a “mind,” and “reason,” and “consciousness,” and “identity,” and a whole bunch of other things.

One can say that those are not entities.

Well, only by defining “entity” as “that which is merely physical,” which is an assumption, not an argument. What’s evident is that we use these allegedly unreal “entities” all the time, just as you and I are doing at this very moment. So how we can be so reliant on something that somebody is insisting is “unreal” is a really good question.

We use abstract nouns all the time but they are not entities. For example 'love' is some set of behaviors, attitudes, feelings but it's not a thing in itself.

These are wrappers that we use to contain complexity so that we can talk about it easily.

[Immanuel Can]

One can say that those are not entities.

Well, only by defining “entity” as “that which is merely physical,” which is an assumption, not an argument. What’s evident is that we use these allegedly unreal “entities” all the time, just as you and I are doing at this very moment. So how we can be so reliant on something that somebody is insisting is “unreal” is a really good question.

We use abstract nouns all the time but they are not entities. For example 'love' is some set of behaviors, attitudes, feelings but it's not a thing in itself.

These are wrappers that we use to contain complexity so that we can talk about it easily.

What do you mean by your phrase, “thing in itself”? You mean “not real”? Or you simply mean, “Not physical”? Which is it?

As for “complexity,” the problem is not that these things are merely “complex” forms of physical things. It’s that they are of a completely different order or kind than merely physical things. A “mind” isn’t merely a “complex” form of brain. It’s an entity that, as Physicalists say, “supervenes upon” or “is an epiphenomenon.” When you look that term up, you’ll find it means “something of a completely different order, that springs inexplicably out of a physical thing.” So that’s the best they can do.