Apr 18, 2012 -- 2:54PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 1:05PM, williejhonlo wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 12:35PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 14, 2012 -- 4:50PM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 13, 2012 -- 10:41AM, williejhonlo wrote:

Apr 12, 2012 -- 10:35PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 12, 2012 -- 2:55PM, williejhonlo wrote:

Schwartz attributes will power as mental force. He believes in a duality between mind and brain.

Dualism is a logical pardox raher than an existential reality.

Nature is the substance; mind, the function. The function never separates from substance, nor the substance from the function. Function and substance, though separate, are causally connected. Nature governs the mind, and the mind is nature’s function; they mesh. Although both retain their own character, they are inseparable.

The Heart Sutra

Yes, they are one and different at the same time. Mind is something more subtle while the gross elements are something more groos.

Subtle it may be, but all the evidence points to the mind being a product of the brain. There is no evidence pointing in the other direction.

I'm confused - you denigrate Emergentism yet you seem to endorse Epiphenomonelism. I fail to see a real difference betwee the two stances.

 

Hi neo, this something something I read in the book " The mind & the brain" by Jeffrey M Schwartz: PROCESS PHILOSOPHY, a school greatly influenced by Alfred North Whitehead, holds that mind and brain are manifestations of a single reality, one that  is in constant flux. It thus is compatible with classical Buddhist philosophy, which views clear and penetrating awareness of change and impermaence ( anicca in Pali) as the essence of insight. Thus, as whitehead put it, "The reality is the process," and it is a process made up of vital transient "drops of experience, complex and interdependent." This view is striking consistent with recent developments in quantum physics.

What confuses me about the stance Namchuck takes is that he seems to be saying a red rose is real and a yellow rose is false

I believe in what David Chalmers  said, "It's not looking very likely that we're going to reduce the mind to the brain. In fact, there may be systematic reasons to think that  there will always be a gulf between the physical and the mental."

The fact that you have so many detractors in the mind and brain connection debate means that there is uncertainty from all sides.

Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:08PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 7:37PM, williejhonlo wrote:

I believe in what David Chalmers  said, "It's not looking very likely that we're going to reduce the mind to the brain. In fact, there may be systematic reasons to think that  there will always be a gulf between the physical and the mental."

The fact that you have so many detractors in the mind and brain connection debate means that there is uncertainty from all sides.

The Mind/Brain dichotomy is nothing more than a logical paradox. Wholeness is neither Mind nor Brain, it is a Mind<->Brain Unity.

Why would Wholeness need connectivity?

 

Yes, even in science they say that energy cannot be created or destroyed. If so, mind and consciousness can never be created or destroyed.

Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:08PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 7:37PM, williejhonlo wrote:

I believe in what David Chalmers  said, "It's not looking very likely that we're going to reduce the mind to the brain. In fact, there may be systematic reasons to think that  there will always be a gulf between the physical and the mental."

The fact that you have so many detractors in the mind and brain connection debate means that there is uncertainty from all sides.

The Mind/Brain dichotomy is nothing more than a logical paradox. Wholeness is neither Mind nor Brain, it is a Mind<->Brain Unity.

I'd agree with this, Neomonist, while adding that wholeness also involves the right kind of relationship between the brain/mind and the world.

 

Apr 19, 2012 -- 2:57AM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:08PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 7:37PM, williejhonlo wrote:

I believe in what David Chalmers  said, "It's not looking very likely that we're going to reduce the mind to the brain. In fact, there may be systematic reasons to think that  there will always be a gulf between the physical and the mental."

The fact that you have so many detractors in the mind and brain connection debate means that there is uncertainty from all sides.

The Mind/Brain dichotomy is nothing more than a logical paradox. Wholeness is neither Mind nor Brain, it is a Mind<->Brain Unity.

I'd agree with this, Neomonist, while adding that wholeness also involves the right kind of relationship between the brain/mind and the world.

 

There you go again, postulating a dichotomy where there is none in an existential sense. Wholeness is a mind<->brain<->world Oneness

Apr 19, 2012 -- 3:23AM, Namchuck wrote:

You wrote, willejhonlo, that:

'Wisdom doesn't come from the brain, wisdom comes from experience.'

Wisdom comes from a brain capable of analysing and learning from its experiences.

I have not encountered the kind of "wisdom" that might come from the absence of a brain, have you?

This would go against epiphenomenalism whichs states that a nonphysical phenomena cannot act on anything physical.