prominent neuroscience folk who don't believe mind is just the product of brain activity

[iambiguous]

Me:

"It will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain.... Although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not....To me, it seems more and more reasonable to suggest that the mind may be a distinct and different essence"  Wilder Penfield

Okay, going back to all we still do not know regarding how and why the human condition fits into an explanation for the existence of existence itself, it may well be that human brains will never be able to grasp it...ontologically? teleologically? deontologically?

Instead, those like henry quirk simply aver -- assert, affirm, declare, state, allege, claim -- that a God, the God, their God implanted free will in our very souls at the point of conception. Or something along those lines.

For henry, it's the Deist God. 

Only he is long gone and may well never return to His...Creation?

Then this part...

'All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.'

Where's the link to an actual argument -- proof? -- that comes closest to a consensus "here and now" among philosophers, scientists [and theologians?] regarding the human brain/mind relationship.

Finally [for those of my own considerably more cynical, uncertain, ambiguous bent], it all comes back around to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... _pandemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_records
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events  

Okay, consciousness is finally pinned down. And, as well, in a world where it is determined [no pun intended]  that "somehow" we did acquire free will.

Someone or something "out there" either is or is not able to encompass human interactions given a font from which all that is Creation is encompassed. 

Which, of course, most call God.

henry:

As I told you elsewhere: I can't help you. You'll have to work out your own salvation.

When am I ever going to learn how utterly futile it is to confront minds as, uh, determined as his is to simply ignore the points I raise.

Click, of course.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Henry's inconsilient, imparsimonous, non-consensus, unwarranted, unjustified, untrue beliefs are inseparable from his identity, his ego. Just as ours are from our consilient, parsimonious, consensual, warranted, justified, true beliefs. He has to defend them, at all costs, from cognitive dissonance. Admitting error would be a personal failure and reality has to be distorted to protect the ego. He has to interpret reality by the automatic bias of motivated reasoning to maintain his worldview. He would also suffer group alienation from fellow believers. Our beliefs are woven in to an epic personal and cultural narrative of all embracing total subjective coherence.

It's quite normal. We are believing machines. Ever insisted that someone loves you when they don't? How crushing is the realisation that they don't? It feels like a terminal cancer diagnosis. Forget, ignore, deny all you will.

It's a very rare believer who acknowledges reality yet still, apologetically, helplessly, believes.

There is nothing of any philosophical import in this, just hard wired, four billion years in the making, righteous minds; the psychology of belief which is ultimately physiological: we can't not believe. Just make sure that your beliefs, your believing is consiliently, consensually, externally coherent and warranted and justified and true.

Bow your head to the axiom of materialism. And then hold it up. The only 'problem' for materialists is that science and the limits of reason cannot prove a negative, including that one, amusingly. That does not create space, possibility for the unreason of the supernatural. There is no gap for it to lurk in. Apart from in our fears. Common sense; bon courage mes braves. And let's love regardless. Let's try and love Henry for a start. Affront to our egos, our utter incapacity, our failure to change his mind, we inevitably bring out the worst in him, as he is. He's no tetradic troll. Reason itself cannot possibly enlighten unreason. Fear. Finding commonality is the best one can hope for.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Yes, I know, Liza...

Mind is a state of matter. If 99% of all known neuroscientists believe otherwise, then that's a private, un-transferable, subjective matter of faith; incoherent, unwarranted, unjustified, untrue belief. It has no epistemological weight whatsoever. Zero. Null.

...as I say: I disagree.

Please, feel free to post your own list of prominent neuroscience folk who believe mind is just the product of brain activity.

henry, dear, have you served?

[Belinda]

Reason itself cannot possibly enlighten unreason. Fear. Finding commonality is the best one can hope for.

I hope, Martin, that advice will be applied to the escalating war Iran and Israel.

[henry quirk]

Neuropsychologist Roger Sperry

He wrote Science and Moral Priority: Merging Mind, Brain, and Human Values

"Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature."

Next: neuroscientist Benjamin Libet

[henry quirk]

henry, dear, have you served?

Steamed broccoli? In the Merchant Marine?

Can't imagine what the relevance is.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

henry, dear, have you served?

Steamed broccoli? In the Merchant Marine?

Can't imagine what the relevance is.

None whatsoever to ancient history. I'm just trying to find fellow feeling, what life experiences inform your beliefs. I want to embrace you mate, not change your beliefs. Find a way forward together despite totally polarized world views. I have not had the honour to serve, but always give honour to those who have. Otherwise we must have a different entrée. We have westerns. That's a good one.

[accelafine]

henry, dear, have you served?

Steamed broccoli? In the Merchant Marine?

Can't imagine what the relevance is.

None whatsoever to ancient history. I'm just trying to find fellow feeling, what life experiences inform your beliefs. I want to embrace you mate, not change your beliefs. Find a way forward together despite totally polarized world views. I have not had the honour to serve, but always give honour to those who have. Otherwise we must a different entrée. We have westerns. That's a good one.

[iambiguous]

"Prior to the advent of the brain, there was no color and no sound in the universe, nor was there any flavor or aroma and probably rather little sense and no feeling or emotion. Before brains the universe was also free of pain and anxiety.   roger sperry

As for this...

"Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature."

...that's basically my point of view "here and now" regarding my own philosophical prejudice:

'All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.'

Though, sure, as iwannaplato often noted, I may well be completely misunderstanding an author's point. Which is why I ask others to connect the dots between what they think the author is conveying and how it is applicable to their interactions with others in the is/ought world.

Then this part...

Henry maintains that the Deist God installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

And yet in regard to human interactions morally and politically, Deists are [like the rest of us] all up and down the political spectrum. 

Unless, of course, I still don't have a grasp on henry's own point itself. And what if I misunderstand his point even more than he misunderstands mine?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

"Prior to the advent of the brain, there was no color and no sound in the universe, nor was there any flavor or aroma and probably rather little sense and no feeling or emotion. Before brains the universe was also free of pain and anxiety.   roger sperry

As for this...

"Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature."

...that's basically my point of view "here and now" regarding my own philosophical prejudice:

'All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.'

Though, sure, as iwannaplato often noted, I may well be completely misunderstanding an author's point. Which is why I ask others to connect the dots between what they think the author is conveying and how it is applicable to their interactions with others in the is/ought world.

Then this part...

Henry maintains that the Deist God installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

And yet in regard to human interactions morally and politically, Deists are [like the rest of us] all up and down the political spectrum. 

Unless, of course, I still don't have a grasp on henry's own point itself. And what if I misunderstand his point even more than he misunderstands mine?

There's nothing to grasp. But the fallacies of these long dead, longer surpassed, old men, writing their grandiose memoirs. They were formulating this thinking a century ago and it was already refuted three before that. Our ignorant arrogance is breath taking. Why, how should we be able to understand nature in its ineffable depth of complexity upon complexity.. upon complexity, when we are just an epiphenomenon on the surface, of five layers of emergence, with no depth. That still leaves no space, no need, for magic.

PS All of these long dead, longer obsolete, savant (Eccles, with his idiolectic 'promissory materialism', et al, Professor Sir John Polkinghorne FRS (diminished to Rev.), Freeman Dyson, Anthony Flew of this parish), including the greatest and most tragi-comic of them all, Professor Sir Fred Hoyle FRS, failed from their peak. They all discovered wonders of nature (with the exception of the philosopher Flew of course) that stunned, stunted, side tracked, seduced, short circuited their narrow, 3/4 sigma, intelligence down fallacious cul de sacs of incoherent, unwarranted, unjustified, untrue belief. Their egos could not reverse. Einstein's was the ultimate purely rational failure, the greatest of all time forever to come. They are all in the same genius ego boat. Driven hard on to the rocks by the winds of fallacy. There is no philosophy here. Just frail, absurd, egotism. GPT-4 doesn't have that problem.

[Belinda]

"Prior to the advent of the brain, there was no color and no sound in the universe, nor was there any flavor or aroma and probably rather little sense and no feeling or emotion. Before brains the universe was also free of pain and anxiety.   roger sperry

As for this...

"Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature."

...that's basically my point of view "here and now" regarding my own philosophical prejudice:

'All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.'

Though, sure, as iwannaplato often noted, I may well be completely misunderstanding an author's point. Which is why I ask others to connect the dots between what they think the author is conveying and how it is applicable to their interactions with others in the is/ought world.

Then this part...

Henry maintains that the Deist God installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

And yet in regard to human interactions morally and politically, Deists are [like the rest of us] all up and down the political spectrum. 

Unless, of course, I still don't have a grasp on henry's own point itself. And what if I misunderstand his point even more than he misunderstands mine?

If one must believe in Creator God, then the deist God according to which the Deist God "installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature"." is true.

However Roger Sperry's

"Prior to the advent of the brain, there was no color and no sound in the universe, nor was there any flavor or aroma and probably rather little sense and no feeling or emotion. Before brains the universe was also free of pain and anxiety.

disrespects mind which has the same status as brain. For 'brain ' read extended matter' or 'extension'. Mind then is not extended in space but is nevertheless an attribute of nature, as is extended matter. If Sperry instead of writing "brain" had written brainmind he'd have been more correct.

I say more correct because brainmind evolved. Are viruses alive? Life is not all or nothing . Life is not even a spectrum but is at least a three-dimensional array.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

"Prior to the advent of the brain, there was no color and no sound in the universe, nor was there any flavor or aroma and probably rather little sense and no feeling or emotion. Before brains the universe was also free of pain and anxiety.   roger sperry

As for this...

"Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature."

...that's basically my point of view "here and now" regarding my own philosophical prejudice:

'All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.'

Though, sure, as iwannaplato often noted, I may well be completely misunderstanding an author's point. Which is why I ask others to connect the dots between what they think the author is conveying and how it is applicable to their interactions with others in the is/ought world.

Then this part...

Henry maintains that the Deist God installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

And yet in regard to human interactions morally and politically, Deists are [like the rest of us] all up and down the political spectrum. 

Unless, of course, I still don't have a grasp on henry's own point itself. And what if I misunderstand his point even more than he misunderstands mine?

If one must believe in Creator God, then the deist God according to which the Deist God "installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature"." is true.

However Roger Sperry's

"Prior to the advent of the brain, there was no color and no sound in the universe, nor was there any flavor or aroma and probably rather little sense and no feeling or emotion. Before brains the universe was also free of pain and anxiety.

disrespects mind which has the same status as brain. For 'brain ' read extended matter' or 'extension'. Mind then is not extended in space but is nevertheless an attribute of nature, as is extended matter. If Sperry instead of writing "brain" had written brainmind he'd have been more correct.

I say more correct because brainmind evolved. Are viruses alive? Life is not all or nothing . Life is not even a spectrum but is at least a three-dimensional array.

Why? How?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Reason itself cannot possibly enlighten unreason. Fear. Finding commonality is the best one can hope for.

I hope, Martin, that advice will be applied to the escalating war Iran and Israel.

Not a hope in thermonuclear Hell, Belinda. That war ends when Iran is ground down for a few years more. I doubt that will stop its now accelerated enrichment program. Like Pakistan, they will eat grass to get the bomb now. And Turkey, Saudi and Egypt will all do the same, with less stress on their people.

[henry quirk]

Derail'd & hijack'd: SOP in-forum.

Oh, well, it was worth a shot.

So, let's wade thru some crap...

ignore the points I raise.

Bein' fractured must include havin' poor recall. I've tackled all your ponts, in multiple conversations, across multiple threads. I've laid out what I think and why I think it on free will, natural rights, God, abortion, trannies, commies, RED MAN DEFIANT, guns, hylomorphism, morality, etc.

Can't see the point in doin' it all over again.

-----

I want to embrace you mate

No thanks.

-----

ours are from our consilient, parsimonious, consensual, warranted, justified, true beliefs

See, I think your all-consumin' hatred of a fiction, your obsession with love while declarin' yourself as just meat, and your sunny nihilism, is all just silly, schizoid, nonsense, but: whatever floats your boat.

-----

"Unless, of course, I still don't have a grasp on henry's own point itself.

Oh, you get what I'm sayin'. It's just none of it satisfies you. You wanna get right with God and I'm no help in that. Thing is: I never claimed I could be. I never promised salvation.

-----

C'est la vie, B.

-----

If any of you folks bring sumthin' new to the table we can talk, otherwise: I leave you to your circle jerk.

[Belinda]

"Prior to the advent of the brain, there was no color and no sound in the universe, nor was there any flavor or aroma and probably rather little sense and no feeling or emotion. Before brains the universe was also free of pain and anxiety.   roger sperry

As for this...

"Those centermost processes of the brain with which consciousness is presumably associated are simply not understood. They are so far beyond our comprehension at present that no one I know of has been able even to imagine their nature."

...that's basically my point of view "here and now" regarding my own philosophical prejudice:



Though, sure, as iwannaplato often noted, I may well be completely misunderstanding an author's point. Which is why I ask others to connect the dots between what they think the author is conveying and how it is applicable to their interactions with others in the is/ought world.

Then this part...

Henry maintains that the Deist God installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature".

And yet in regard to human interactions morally and politically, Deists are [like the rest of us] all up and down the political spectrum. 

Unless, of course, I still don't have a grasp on henry's own point itself. And what if I misunderstand his point even more than he misunderstands mine?

If one must believe in Creator God, then the deist God according to which the Deist God "installed in the brains of mere mortals the capacity to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature"." is true.

However Roger Sperry's

"Prior to the advent of the brain, there was no color and no sound in the universe, nor was there any flavor or aroma and probably rather little sense and no feeling or emotion. Before brains the universe was also free of pain and anxiety.

disrespects mind which has the same status as brain. For 'brain ' read extended matter' or 'extension'. Mind then is not extended in space but is nevertheless an attribute of nature, as is extended matter. If Sperry instead of writing "brain" had written brainmind he'd have been more correct.

I say more correct because brainmind evolved. Are viruses alive? Life is not all or nothing . Life is not even a spectrum but is at least a three-dimensional array.

Why? How?

Deism evolved after the scientific Enlightenment (17th 18th centuries). People often wanted a version of God that was reasonable and suited the orderly view of nature. There were other reasons for Deism to evolve. My guess is that this is the one that appeals to Henry, and appeals to me, except that I prefer the Platonic Form of The Good.

Henry is also independent and rebels against any authority . Deists rebelled against the authorities of churches, religious sects, and kings.