You have a misunderstanding of dualism... as most do; the difference between brain and mind are not "found" in space, but in time.
Yes, someone is.. the OP. And I agree, your brain existed first. It wasn't until our brain advanced in our evolution that we created the concept of the mind. If you brain stopped functioning, you wouldn't know because you'd be dead. Your body could still be alive after your brain dies, but it wouldn't last very long. It's like a colony of ants. They are separate, yet work together under a single command from the queen. If you kill the queen, you won't kill the colony but without a queen, it'd slowly die off until it exists no more.
I would like to see you elaborate on the leap made between the bold statements. I think the statments that follow are somehow fallacious, but i'm not quite sure how to articulate exactly what i mean by that. I don't think it's an unreasonable line of thought to explore... but my intuition says "something's off." Indeed, the involuntary "conditioning" can physically affect the brain, because thoughts are produced by physical events (including electrical currents in the brain), and any repeated physical event can cause change. But we are always changing, to some degree. I can change another person's brain by abuse, with blunt force trauma, without their consent. However, that's not to say that a child's mind cannot alter its own brain (i would assume accidentally), due to thoughts habituated from the imposition of external abuse. The problem is that a child does not yet have full control over their own mind (and arguably, no one really does, but there is some obvious disparity between a child's self-control and that of an adult). So, it almost seems like you're arguing that an abused child "did it to themselves," by thinking "wrong thoughts," though those thoughts are the result of externally imposed stimuli... but i don't think anyone would actually argue that, so i'm assuming that's not the intent. If mind is pre-eminent... would it even be possible for a child to suffer abuse? Wouldn't the child just simply "choose not to experience" anything detrimental? Or would they have to learn to control their own mind, first, through experience of imposed detriment, to accomplish such a thing? Thoughts are produced by electrically habituated neural usage, so if you keep using those same habituated pathways, you'll continue to reinforce those same "habits," those same thought patterns, which occur physically, inside the brain. But a developed mind can learn this, and with some training, can actually "rewire" themselves, by intentionally habituating "right thoughts." However, any physical alteration produced by years of wrong thoughts, might be irreversible, or could take a very long time to either correct or undo... and those old pathways probably still exist, even after you un-habituate them. The fact of the "matter" is (eh, pun), the material of the brain is affected by many things, and that material effect then influences its own function. So idk if "pre-eminent" is the right term... but i also agree that the brain can be changed by a person's willingness to do so (should they encounter the tools and conducive environments required to facilitate such a process).
Yes, a mind can experience polarity... so what of it? Why is pleasure produced by some things and pain by others? Your fallacy lies in you not understanding your abuse of the word "produced" and "produce".
If mind is pre-eminent... would it even be possible for a child to suffer abuse? Wouldn't the child just simply "choose not to experience" anything detrimental? Or would they have to learn to control their own mind, first, through experience of imposed detriment, to accomplish such a thing? What is a "child"? How do you know of what a "child" can and cannot do? Is it not from perception? Thoughts are produced by electrically habituated neural usage, so if you keep using those same habituated pathways, you'll continue to reinforce those same "habits," those same thought patterns, which occur physically, inside the brain. But a developed mind can learn this, and with some training, can actually "rewire" themselves, by intentionally habituating "right thoughts." However, any physical alteration produced by years of wrong thoughts, might be irreversible, or could take a very long time to either correct or undo... and those old pathways probably still exist, even after you un-habituate them. Let me ask you the question that I raised to foxpox... Can a thought be represented as being one and the same with a concantentaion of electro-chemicals? Or do you know of the reality of thought in a manner that does not require the analysis of electro-chemicals? Do you need to study brain scans, and bits of quantifiable energy, in order to intelligibly comprehend your thoughts?
No, because that would kill you silly.. but you could be hooked up to electrodes and such that scanned your brain and it's activity and see exactly what neurons fire together to form the word "Hi". That's where and how that word is physically existing as a thought within your brain. Yes, so the correspondents of a thought are physical traces left in the brain, the thought itself is not physical, do you understand now? It isn't hard Mantikore, it really, really isn't.
Effy, nevermind this guy, he's a science geek without any grace - destitute of any familiarity with the subtle truths, and, might I add, the eloquent truths, of lady philosophy.
Further down the rabbit hole we go. It's mere deduction, one does not have to be particularly competent in philosophy to understand the differences between words.
Yes, but it takes philosophy for one to comprehend the fact that the difference between words does not lie, per se, in language.
Everything we think we "know," is actually a faith-based assumption that our interpretation of various stimuli (i.e. "Phaneron") is "close enough" to a correct representation of "reality." I personally believe my phaneron to be quite accurate, perhaps more than most. Despite that belief, i remain aware that i could indeed be wrong, and that perhaps my phaneron is allowing me to misinterpret almost everything i am capable of perceiving. But to me, it seems accurate enough... and only rarely does anyone ever attempt to insist that i've woefully misinterpreted anything (e.g. theists, who never seem to have any substantiation for their counter claims). What is a child? A child is a relatively "new" animal, who is not finished developing, and has relatively little experience with being human. Also, i've been a child myself, and i have observed other children, so that is my subjective frame of reference. Also: that last question depends on whether you accept my subjectively interpreted definition of "intelligibly." I feel my definition of that word allows me to say that i don't necessarily "need" to be a brain expert to understand my own thoughts... but could it help? Probably. I might attain a new level of self-knowledge, if i knew every little thing there is to know about how my own brain works. Or, it might just confirm that i indeed already knew enough to have a close enough understanding of myself, and that becoming an expert wouldn't change much at all, and would only be a slight improvement... but would also create a new problem: it would become even more difficult for me to communicate my own self-understanding to others who lack that expert frame of reference. Interesting stuff though.
"Finally, you, Gassendi, in passing criticize me because, 'although I admitted nothing in myself but a mind, I nonetheless speak of the wax I see and touch, which I could not do without eyes and hands.' But you should have realized what I took care to point out, that I was not talking about the sight and touch that require the involvement of bodily organs, but simply the thought (i.e., the sentience or perception) of seeing and touching; and that organs themselves are not essential to this, we know by the nightly experience of our dreams." - Descartes "For if I say, I see, or, I walk, therefore I am; and if I understand by vision or walking the act of my eyes or of my limbs, which is the work of the body, the conclusion is not absolutely certain, because, as is often the case in dreams, I may think that I see or walk, although I do not open my eyes or move from place to place, and even, perhaps, although I have no body; BUT, if I mean the sensation itself, or consciousness of seeing or walking, the knowledge is manifestly certain, because it is then referred to the mind, which alone perceives or is conscious that it sees or walks" - Descartes
allows me to say that i don't necessarily "need" to be a brain expert to understand my own thoughts... but could it help? ... and that's the whole point, who does it "help"? The brain observed, or the being observing?
Those that you call "traces" are the thought.. Look, until you can provide a smidgen of proof for your religious belief that the mind is different from the brain, we're going to go round and round. What isn't hard is providing proof for something your believe, yet you have not done so. So once you feel like you have legit proof, quote me so I get a notification to come back. You have your religious belief of the mind and nothing I show you can sway you as it's not falsifiable. Hell, you couldn't even respond to what I had to say about color cause you have nothing to say, no way to back up your belief against my example. When you're able to produce proof for your belief system, we can continue on. When you're able to respond to my responses in full, we can continue on.
Who is helped by understanding their own biology? I suppose it would help anyone who wants to understand their own biology. ^^ (and may in fact help observers as well, simply because they want to understand how brains work, so they need lots of examples)
that was a very unambiguous "they," referencing the previously mentioned subject. Yes. "they," the observers. If someone wants to observe something to help themselves better understand it (regardless of extended motives), "they" will need to observe many examples; it's part of the scientific method. You don't just look at one thing one time and make a conclusion (though this is exactly what some people do... which makes their conclusions premature and invalid, even if they end up being correct).
There is no mind. Just a squishy electric brain. It's pretty powerful. So much so that you can't accept what it is capable of.