Do brains really exist?

[lifegazer]

Most people - here, at least - believe that mental experiences (thoughts; feelings; sensations; etc.) are [by-products of] brain processes. I.e., they believe that the brain really exists.
But how do we reconcile the 'motion of bricks', as it were (that's what it boils down to if we believe that the brain is a finite thing existing in space & time, composed of finite building-blocks), with these actual experiences?
And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human? And yes, the experience of being a human individual is a singular experience: ~Something~ singular encompasses/embraces the totality of ALL mental experiences... and perceives this totality of experiences As One!!!

I'm ready for conversion. I'm tired of having no mates and am ready to throw God into the garbage can. But I need a little persuasion. But...
To my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that:
motion of bricks = mental experience.

Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience.

These are major problems for anyone with an open-mind and a desire to see the sense of something. So let's hear some sense. Does anyone here want to tackle these problems, or is a belief in the reality of the brain akin to a religious belief, as I suspect?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Please read about severe cases of epilepsy and the corpus callosum. A little research on Cognitive Science would be useful.

 

[aggle-rithm]

To my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that:
motion of bricks = mental experience.

I think it's ludicrous, too. Perhaps a better analogy would help?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Hey!! and who said we cant be friends!

 

[Upchurch]

[tangent filter]

Most people ... believe that mental experiences ... are ... brain processes. I.e., they believe that the brain really exists.
But how do we reconcile the 'motion of bricks', as it were ..., with these actual experiences?

[/tangent filter]
Don't understand the question. Reconcile in what way?

And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human?

Er... the way you've defined it above, one brain is have the singular experience of one human.

Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience.

Whoever said that something composed of parts that are "seperated and oblivious to one another" has a single experience? And how could something even be composed of seperated parts? The statement makes no sense.

 

[lifegazer]

I think it's ludicrous, too. Perhaps a better analogy would help?

Why?
... If you believe that brains really exist then your belief boils-down to the fact that a finite entity existing in space & time is composed of numerous & separated building-blocks - and that their interaction & motion yields the by-product of mental-experiences.
So my analogy suffices.

 

[lifegazer]

Please read about severe cases of epilepsy and the corpus callosum. A little research on Cognitive Science would be useful.

This statement is completely irrelevant to my OP and completely evades answering the questions I asked therein.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This statement is completely irrelevant to my OP and completely evades answering the questions I asked therein.

This is exactly why you need to do your homework! Thanks for confirming my point. It is more than relevant, iff, you really want to know what you are talking about!

 

[Wudang]

This statement is completely irrelevant to my OP and completely evades answering the questions I asked therein.

If you'd bothered to find out what the corpus callosum is you would understand the relevance.

 

[lifegazer]

"Most people ... believe that mental experiences ... are ... brain processes. I.e., they believe that the brain really exists.
But how do we reconcile the 'motion of bricks', as it were ..., with these actual experiences?

Don't understand the question. Reconcile in what way?

Well it's pretty obvious to me that the 'motion of bricks' doesn't equate to mental experiences. If it does, then please tell me what mental experiences are being had by the Atlantic Ocean, as we speak.
Further, since there are quite a few classes of mental-experience and numerous types of experience within each class of mental-experience, this raises further ludicrous contemplations, such as:
In what manner do bricks have to move or interact in order to experience feeling as opposed to sensation, for example?

Throw an orange at an apple and get a thought?
Throw a banana at a pear and get a feeling?
Are there any bananas or pears in the Atlantic?
Is the Atlantic feeling wet and thinking about travelling to the Indian Ocean?

"And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human?"

Er... the way you've defined it above, one brain is have the singular experience of one human.

The brain was described as a finite entity composed of numerous parts all oblivious to one another. Hardly singular in itself.

"Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience."

Whoever said that something composed of parts that are "seperated and oblivious to one another" has a single experience?

Well, if you believe in the reality of a brain, then that is what your belief must be.
Let me ask you a question:
Do you think your big toe (if real) is aware of your little toe (if real)?
Hopefully (being quite intelligent), you'll say no.
... Likewise, all parts of a real brain must be oblivious of each other. Otherwise, all parts of a real brain would have to be self-aware, as well as being aware of other 'parts' beyond themselves. Which would result in a brain with numerous self-awarenesses and no possibility of a singular awareness.

And how could something even be composed of seperated parts? The statement makes no sense.

Sorry?
Are you suggesting that the brain is indivisible, per chance??!!!!!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Why?
... If you believe that brains really exist then your belief boils-down to the fact that a finite entity existing in space & time is composed of numerous & separated building-blocks - and that their interaction & motion yields the by-product of mental-experiences.
So my analogy suffices.

If you get enough bricks moving in the right configuration, then I suppose it could achieve an emergent property like consciousness. It would take a lot of bricks, mind you, interacting in an incredibly complex manner. I really think neurons work much better.

As for the human experience being a "singular experience" -- that impression of being "singular" can be disrupted disturbingly easily. Read some of the writings of Oliver Sacks, who often uses the phrase "de-souled by disease" to describe some of his unfortunate patients.

 

[lifegazer]

This is exactly why you need to do your homework! Thanks for confirming my point. It is more than relevant, iff, you really want to know what you are talking about!

Answer the questions in my OP or go away. I'm filtering my responses. Don't waste any more of your time unless you're prepared to stop wasting my own.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Well it's pretty obvious to me that the 'motion of bricks' doesn't equate to mental experiences. If it does, then please tell me what mental experiences are being had by the Atlantic Ocean, as we speak.

...............
Throw an orange at an apple and get a thought?
Throw a banana at a pear and get a feeling?
Are there any bananas or pears in the Atlantic?
Is the Atlantic feeling wet and thinking about travelling to the Indian Ocean?

Great googly-moogly, are these some bad analogies! Read up on neural networks, then get back to us. (of course, I know you won't do this. Oh, well.)

 

[Piscivore]

And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human?

None of them. This is as meaningless a question as asking which air molecule makes a gust of wind. The "bricks" don't "have an experience"- you are just removing your imaginary entity down a peg. The actions of all of them together are the "experience," and the totality of the "experiences" call itself human because of feedback interactions.

And yes, the experience of being a human individual is a singular experience:

Sort of, but this isn't as big a deal as you'd like to think.

~Something~ singular encompasses/embraces the totality of ALL mental experiences... and perceives this totality of experiences As One!!!

Nope. You seem to wish there were, but no evidence has been found to support such a pronouncement.

To my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that:
motion of bricks = mental experience.

Why?

Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience

Why? Your main obstacle, I think, is that you want to preserve the "specialness" that is you. Let go of the "entity," it is not real.

The other part you don't get, it that the "parts" are not separated. For a brief while, they are cohesive, but this is not a permanent condition.

Even the "oblivious" part is wrong, technically. The "parts" interact with each other, so they are "aware" of each other in the same way vinegar and baking soda are "aware" of each other.

These are major problems for anyone with an open-mind and a desire to see the sense of something.

Antother error. You assume that things have to make sense. I'm not being flip or insulting: very little of the universe really "makes sense" from a "human" POV. Does a mindless, impartial universe of which we are an infintesimal part make "sense"? But it seems that's what we've got.

You have to look at the evidence before you can start inventing theories.

So let's hear some sense.

If that's what you want, I'm not sure I can help you, for the reasons I give above.

Does anyone here want to tackle these problems,

This post is evidence that the answer is "yes."

or is a belief in the reality of the brain akin to a religious belief, as I suspect?

Nope.

 

[lifegazer]

Great googly-moogly, are these some bad analogies! Read up on neural networks, then get back to us. (of course, I know you won't do this. Oh, well.)

It's time for a few home-truths squire:

(1) This is a philosophical discussion - not a scientific discussion. Regardless...
(2) Science has no proof that anything! - least of all 'a brain' - is real.
(3) Science has not reconciled mental-experience to material interaction/motion.
(4) My question regarding the singularity of experience has not even been addressed by science.

Forget your science text-books. They cannot answer my questions in the OP.
And that is a fact.

If science can answer any of my questions, then tell me how 'it' has answered them. Otherwise, open your mind and starting thinking at a higher level.

 

[Piscivore]

If science can answer any of my questions, then tell me how 'it' has answered them. Otherwise, open your mind and starting thinking at a higher level.

BD Zen did. It's our fault you don't understand the answer?

(2) Science has no proof that anything! - least of all 'a brain' - is real.
(3) Science has not reconciled mental-experience to material interaction/motion.
(4) My question regarding the singularity of experience has not even been addressed by science.

2) You've never adequately explained what you mean by "real," so I cannot answer that.
3) How do you know, when you don't recognise it when it is pointed out to you?
4) Neither has "science" addressed the question of what "42" means in relation to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Why do you think that is?

 

[P.S.A.]

How is the inability to ever express remorse, or have any empathy at all, a higher form of thought? If you ask me, such thought is in fact less than human, as it encompasses fewer emotions than a health human mind, and is therefore a lower level...

 

[Z]

Goodness, he even recycles his last-resort trash postings?

We did, after all, see this line before:

I'm ready for conversion. I'm tired of having no mates and am ready to throw God into the garbage can. But I need a little persuasion. But...

Yep. Sheer psychosis. Sad, really.

But how do we reconcile the 'motion of bricks', as it were (that's what it boils down to if we believe that the brain is a finite thing existing in space & time, composed of finite building-blocks), with these actual experiences?

Neuroscientists are asking the same questions. When they have an answer, so will you.

Of course, your argument boils down to 'I don't know how it works, so it must be something else entirely.'

And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human? And yes, the experience of being a human individual is a singular experience: ~Something~ singular encompasses/embraces the totality of ALL mental experiences... and perceives this totality of experiences As One!!!

The 'singular Brain', of course.

Yes, the brain is comprised of many smaller elements - just like bricks are comprised of many smaller elements.

Meanwhile...

The experience of being a human individual is hardly a singular experience; rather, it is a compound experience comprised of many factors: sensation, emotion, memory, thought, etc. In fact, I can think of absolutely no definition of singular that would apply to human experience, unless you are merely referring to the privacy issue, which is still essentially a non-issue.

Also, to my mind, it is ludicrous to believe that a divided entity (an entity composed of numerous parts, all separated and oblivious to one another), can "achieve" individual experience.

Well, obviously you need to open and broaden your mind, then.

We observe many, MANY things which are comprised of numerous parts, and they exist as individual things. And our parts are not oblivious to each other - not in the least. Neither are they purely aware. They are simply reactionary. Some parts are aware of other parts; the rest are simply connected by nerve cells as a form of monitoring system for the neural net that keeps track of it all.

I suppose you don't understand how a computer, comprised of many singular parts all oblivious to each other, can perform any actions, either?

Daft, man.

These are major problems for anyone with an open-mind and a desire to see the sense of something. So let's hear some sense. Does anyone here want to tackle these problems, or is a belief in the reality of the brain akin to a religious belief, as I suspect?

No, a religious belief is faith in something for which evidence either does not exist at all, or for which evidence is contrary to that faith. Evidence exists for the existence of the brain, within the logical paradigm of assuming what is 'out there' is at all consistant and real.

Every system of belief or knowledge relies upon at least one assumption, and one of the fundamental assumptions that has had the most practical application has been the belief that what we observe is fair evidence of what is there. Otherwise, we can rely upon nothing at all.

In religion, however, belief is often founded upon nothing at all - upon empty anecdotes or imagination or misunderstandings of observations. Evidence is often either lacking entirely, or completely contrary to those beliefs. And most religions rely upon mountains of assumptions, many of which are absurd, contradictory, or demonstrably false.

 

[lifegazer]

"And can somebody please tell me which 'singular brick' is having the singular experience of being a human?"

None of them. This is as meaningless a question as asking which air molecule makes a gust of wind.

Rubbish. If you were the same size as a molecule of air, a 'gust of wind' could be equated to the movement of a molecule.
The comparison is nonsensical...
The fact is that the totality of the different experiences of human INDIVIDUALITY is a singular experience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [emphasis justified!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

... Now, given the fact that you believe the brain to be a real entity composed of many parts - all oblivious to one another -
how do you explain the advent of a singular experience??????!!!

The "bricks" don't "have an experience"- you are just removing your imaginary entity down a peg.

Hold on: this thread is addressed to those that believe that 'the [real] brain' is the seat of all experience. [Meaning that the 'bricks' DO have an experience]
... If you believe that 'experience' emanates from 'God' or 'nothing' or ~something~ hitherto undeclared, then you shouldn't even be attempting to negate my OP - since my OP has not addressed those concepts.

The actions of all of them together are the "experience," and the totality of the "experiences" call itself human because of feedback interactions.

You're just parroting crap.
Experience is singular. Deal with it.
... Having done so, think about how/why an entity composed of numerous parts - all oblivious to one another and all ACTING DIFFERENTLY - can have a singular experience. Then we'll be in the same field-of-play.

"And yes, the experience of being a human individual is a singular experience"

Sort of, but this isn't as big a deal as you'd like to think.

*Laugh*
It's the biggest deal you'll ever see in your whole life. If indeed you ever get to 'see' it.
... Think of another mechanism: a 'car', for example:-
No parts of the car are aware of themselves (likewise, as I explained earlier, no parts of the brain can be aware of themselves - since this negates the possibility of singular experience).
So, no parts of the car can experience themselves nor each other. Yet, the majority of the people here believe that the separate parts of ~a car~ (better known as 'the brain') can experience 'Everything' as One.

This is profound. Really. Why? Because having realised that individual awareness cannot be achieved by entities either oblivious to one another or by entities with individual awarenesses of their own, the conclusion is that individual awareness emanates from an entity that is absolutely singular in itself.
... And you know what that means. Care for some knee-pads?

 

[Z]

Rubbish. If you were the same size as a molecule of air, a 'gust of wind' could be equated to the movement of a molecule.
The comparison is nonsensical...
The fact is that the totality of the different experiences of human INDIVIDUALITY is a singular experience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [emphasis justified!!!!!!!!!!!!!]

... Now, given the fact that you believe the brain to be a real entity composed of many parts - all oblivious to one another -
how do you explain the advent of a singular experience??????!!!

Hold on: this thread is addressed to those that believe that 'the [real] brain' is the seat of all experience. [Meaning that the 'bricks' DO have an experience]
... If you believe that 'experience' emanates from 'God' or 'nothing' or ~something~ hitherto undeclared, then you shouldn't even be attempting to negate my OP - since my OP has not addressed those concepts.

You're just parroting crap.
Experience is singular. Deal with it.
... Having done so, think about how/why an entity composed of numerous parts - all oblivious to one another and all ACTING DIFFERENTLY - can have a singular experience. Then we'll be in the same field-of-play.

*Laugh*
It's the biggest deal you'll ever see in your whole life. If indeed you ever get to 'see' it.
... Think of another mechanism: a 'car', for example:-
No parts of the car are aware of themselves (likewise, as I explained earlier, no parts of the brain can be aware of themselves - since this negates the possibility of singular experience).
So, no parts of the car can experience themselves nor each other. Yet, the majority of the people here believe that the separate parts of ~a car~ (better known as 'the brain') can experience 'Everything' as One.

This is profound. Really. Why? Because having realised that individual awareness cannot be achieved by entities either oblivious to one another or by entities with individual awarenesses of their own, the conclusion is that individual awareness emanates from an entity that is absolutely singular in itself.
... And you know what that means. Care for some knee-pads?

Hoo boy. Here goes Ego-Boy, at it again. Now he feels the need to add extra pepper to his comments. Too bad, because nothing drops the validity of a post, IMO, then abuse of punctuation. Not even colored fonts manage to destroy someone's credibility this much.

And now he's made spurious claims, and assumes that everyone now accepts them. But he hasn't even defined what he is implying or meaning by 'singular' yet. No, he's too busy declaring his claims 'profound' and making empty assertions to bother with ground-work.

Also, notice the false dichotomy in these statements? In his opinion, brain cells must either be oblivious to each other, or must be aware in and of themselves. No middle ground, no other states of being, etc.

There are many observed states within the body in which a smaller system or item within our body is aware of something and takes actions that we, ourselves, are unaware of. Think of what happens when you get a splinter in, say, some insensitive part of your foot. The body reacts appropriately, creates scab material, sends antibodies and white blood cells to care for the wound, etc... all without our awareness of it happening. So clearly, there is some other mode of action going on here - some subordinate form of awareness which exists beneath and separate from our own amalgamate awareness.

But does he consider this possibility? Of course not - it's grey area, and Darren just doesn't accept grey areas as valid.

Well, babble on, old bean. Not that this thread matters much. He still hasn't demonstrated sound premises, shown the totality of his assumptions, or demonstrated any - ANY - practical effects of embracing his theories.