Does Brain=Mind? How Valid Is Strict Materialism?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Thejourney318, Oct 20, 2014.

  1. No worth, no disparaging, no value. Truth cannot be directly related through concepts. Concepts are born of the relative, subjective and duality ridden mind. Anything judged to be worthwhile or not worthwhile within the context of the human experience is never expressing truth.
     
  2.  
    Is truth worthwhile?...
     
  3. The idea of worth only exists in the context of the human mind. Sure, we can say trust is worthwhile, but we could say anything is worthwhile, and nothing is worthwhile.
     
  4. Op, that is an interesting question! I say that the brain is an organ in the body that is primarily used for seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling smelling etc.
      But the mind is what we dream with. No physical activity while sleeping. But the mind is so active that it gives us REM in our sleep.
     
    <span><span>BRAIN: Anatomy, Zoology. </span></span>the <span>part of the central nervous system enclosed inthe cranium of humans and other vertebrates, consisting of a soft,convoluted mass of gray and white matter and serving to control andcoordinate the mental and physical actions.</span>
     
    MIND:(in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, orprocess that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.:
    <span><span>the processes of the human mind.</span></span>
     
  5. I'm not going to be able to convince you otherwise, I already know this. The immaterial mind isn't something that can be proven or disproved.. but I'm always curious as to why someone believes in an immaterial mind. Almost always I never actually get an answer cause it pretty much just boils down to faith in the concept.

    That's all and well, people are going to believe what they're going to believe.. I just have a personal pet peeve with calling it the mind. The mind is the internal processes of your brain.. the immaterial mind is more like your soul, dualism. So I can't stand it when people refer to as the mind when they're really discussing the soul. As someone who loves the brain and loves thinking/talking about it, when someone is like 'let's talk about the mind' and its like awesome, let's do it.. then they bring in the spirituality of it and you come to find out that they really were just talking about the soul that they refer to as the mind. A major let down for me..

    Anyway, aside from a gut feeling, faith.. why do you believe the mind is more than your brain?

    It's because our brains are a biological tool that evolved to make sense of sensory input.. that's what it is there for, its reason. So it needs sensory input otherwise it doesn't know wtf to do with itself and starts wigging out to try and make sense of it all. Randomly activating different areas in hopes of getting some feedback, feedback that it doesn't get when the senses are deprived.

    Just cause I don't believe in an immaterial mind/soul doesn't mean I don't believe in the power of the mind.. the mind that is your brain that is. The things it does are crazy interesting. After about an hour, it basically gets bored.. in a couple of ways. If your senses are deprived, it gets bored and mimics input. If it is sensing the same input for so long, it gets bored and blocks it out. That's why when you smell something for so long, you get used to it and no longer smell it.. or how it blocks out the sound of a fan running after it has heard it for so long. It needs enthralled.
     
  6. Im pretty sure that dreams are caused by DMT in the brain.
     
  7. Truth is the most worthwhile thing. But let's not put a name to what is worthy in it's entirety. Worthless is what? Worthwhile is what?
     
  8. What existed before the brain?
     
  9. In terms of? The mind is the brain, so therefore it can't exist before the brain.. just as much as the brain can't exist before the mind. They're one in the same.
     
  10. #30 *ColtClassic*, Oct 22, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2014
     
    I agree that value is subjective, but definitions of words are not:
     
     
    You are essentially playing a semantics game - saying that truth is of value, but that value in itself is entirely elusive, and that defining it or assigning value to it is not worthwhile (which is an act of assigning value).
     
    Meanwhile, you speak of this as though it is certainly true.
     
    I originally asked the question because you proposed a concept of value and truth that is essentially self-defeating. I wanted to catch you essentially reaching the logical conclusion of your statement that truth, when determined by humans to be of value, is worthless. However, you have contradicted yourself, and found yourself needing to establish value (which apparently pointless according to you).
     
    I don't mean to be hostile, combative, or nit-picking here, but you seem to never actually reveal any truths while also dismissing the validity of others' concepts. .
     
  11.  
    What properties existed before the mind, and what properties existed during and after?
     
  12.  
    Never games of semantics. I actually never dismissed another's validity of concepts. I simply pointed at the nature of concepts. There is nothing certainly true. What a paradox!
     
  13. #33 *ColtClassic*, Oct 22, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2014
     
    Exactly. Your assertions are paradoxes in themselves, and that is what I was aiming to show.
     
    If nothing is certainly true, is that the only certain truth? LOL
     
  14. #34 2000PoundsofReggie, Oct 22, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 22, 2014
    ^ Truth is just funny that way... ironically enough.
     
     
    So, in your opinion, what's the difference between the relative and the absolute - and why do you insist on highlighting the difference?
     
  15. Properties of what? It not like I can discuss the properties of the mind that existed before the mind.. that makes no sense. What vague concept are you trying to allude to?
     
  16.  
    It's more like, If there is something true, our words don't point at at directly. The words might point, but what they point at is not seen.
     
  17. #37 Account_Banned283, Oct 22, 2014
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2014
    The ''evidence'' given to prove the equivalence of the brain and mind is evidence only of correlation, and any further inferences are not only that, inferences, but inferences that are not compatible with any logical system of thought. To prove the equivalence of brain and mind, scientist's need to explain/show how the brain produces the mind (which they are not in any way close to doing), or those who argue that the brain produces the mind need to invent a new form of logic through which their half-ended inferences can actually be carried out to a logical conclusion.
     
  18.  
    Dissolution of the relative and absorption into the absolute. The bubble is popped, the inside like the outside. The only reason to highlight it, is simple that we do not recognize the nature of us and the things we say. The true nature of our reality is not understood. We are caught like fish in a net.

     
    Did it pop out of nothing?
     
  19.  
    So, you are just saying that language can never fully derive the truth, but only hope to scrape the surface or shadow of it?
     
    I agree that human experience is incredibly limited and illusory, but I think truth can be more firmly demonstrated; that it is not an unseen force or matter.
     
  20. The truth is whole. We can't see it in parts, but to see it in whole, the self disappears and so does the world. Why? Because description disappears. What's a world without description?
     

Share This Page