Apr 19, 2012 -- 12:15PM, williejhonlo wrote:

Apr 19, 2012 -- 2:46AM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:27PM, williejhonlo 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.

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.

I think you're a little confused, williejhonlo.

The fact that energy cannot be destroyed doesn't imply that mind, or consciousness, cannot be a product of the brain, as it obviously is.

And I think the evidence is compelling that the mind can be reduced to the brain. There is certainly no compelling evidence pointing in the other direction. Wishful thinking; yes, evidence; no. The mind is what the brain does.

I think they say that energy can't be created as well.

Energy can't be created or destroyed, but most of its permutations are temporary. Consciousness is dependent on the brain that produces it.

Apr 19, 2012 -- 5:07PM, Neomonist wrote:

Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:00PM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 19, 2012 -- 10:19AM, Neomonist wrote:

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

I think that is what I said. 

I must have misunderstood this:

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

.

Yes, I think you did.

Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:06PM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 19, 2012 -- 12:15PM, williejhonlo wrote:

Apr 19, 2012 -- 2:46AM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 18, 2012 -- 8:27PM, williejhonlo 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.

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.

I think you're a little confused, williejhonlo.

The fact that energy cannot be destroyed doesn't imply that mind, or consciousness, cannot be a product of the brain, as it obviously is.

And I think the evidence is compelling that the mind can be reduced to the brain. There is certainly no compelling evidence pointing in the other direction. Wishful thinking; yes, evidence; no. The mind is what the brain does.

I think they say that energy can't be created as well.

Energy can't be created or destroyed, but most of its permutations are temporary. Consciousness is dependent on the brain that produces it.

Not all living things have brains but exhibit conscious behavior. No one can explain or show how something as ineffable or ethereal as consciousness or mind arises out of matter. IMHO the mind> brain debate fits in the same category as abiogenesis, it's a hypothesis.

Apr 2, 2012 -- 12:00AM, Erey wrote:

Yes Namchuck,

I do have "emotional investments" into what I percieve as mysticism.  That is why I came to this board.  I came to the mysticism board to hear MORE about MYSTICISM, how others experience MYSTICISM.  I really did not come here to be told that I am an gulibile idiot and I need you to enlighten me that mysticism does not exist. 

But hey, at least you also seem to have an emotional investment in the subject of mysticism, a negative investment.  Otherwise you would not be here. 

well if i were to describe the 'feelings' I have I would have to say I keep God at somewhat of a distance.  I like to think this is because he is usually mean to me and I don't want to invite more of it.  But maybe I just like distances lol!

Still, I think he is the only one with a clue as to what is going on and why so I try to learn what he is teaching to the extent I can stomach it.  There is so much that has been said though and none of it works for me...  people alwyas find a way to frustrate any effort I make to better myself it seems.  And what he is teaching is harsh at least so it seems to me.  But I just keep trying to learn anyway.  Maybe I'm a fool.

A lot of it is dealing with emotions, dealing with the fallout of not being able to have the 'right' emotions or trying to disentangle myself from whatever I think of as the 'wrong' emotions.  Any more I think the topic of 'right' emotions or 'wrong' emotions is a bit of a red herring though...  there is something deeper there.

In recent years through such studies I saw something that made me stop and see I was confused, something I thought was right as it turns out was very wrong.  As a result of that insight I've eaten a lot of crow and started to back out of a lot of behaviors I formerly thought were desirable.

Apr 20, 2012 -- 2:16PM, williejhonlo wrote:

Apr 19, 2012 -- 4:01PM, Namchuck wrote:

Apr 19, 2012 -- 12:37PM, williejhonlo wrote:

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.

What would go against epiphenomenalism?

The brain learning. Nothing innert can learn anything, could you actually teach your computer something?

I'll answer your question should you give me an example of the sort of "wisdom" that arises other than from creatures with brains?