Grey matter vs your eternal soul

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
1,931
Points
195
This an opinion piece.

There is absolutely no evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny that a soul exists or that your mind somehow extends beyond your body.
That's not even really what it's saying. The article isn't positing anything supernatural. It's simply claiming that the mind isn't the same as the phsyical brain (in the same way software isn't the same thing as a computer), and, to the extent that our minds interact with other minds, they are interconnected. No magic here. No religion.
The mind is the activity of the brain.

Without the brain there is no mind. Without the body there is no brain

There is no mind body duality
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,056
Reaction score
545
Points
85
it leaves you two where you belong - together in brain land.

flora has no brain and evolved before fauna
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following:
You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
Seriously.
.
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following: seriously
I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain. You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
.
you did not include what I have highlighted in his quote - to begin with. did he refer to either flora or fauna. he is referring to physiology, the statement is inaccurate.
.
1600779618885.png

.
what has the "evolutionary biology in plants" have to do with "I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain" -

seriously, they have run away and so will you.
 

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
74,454
Reaction score
10,454
Points
2,030
it leaves you two where you belong - together in brain land.

flora has no brain and evolved before fauna
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following:
You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
Seriously.
.
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following: seriously
I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain. You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
.
you did not include what I have highlighted in his quote - to begin with. did he refer to either flora or fauna. he is referring to physiology, the statement is inaccurate.
.
View attachment 391660
.
what has the "evolutionary biology in plants" have to do with "I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain" -

seriously, they have run away and so will you.
You're babbling and not making any coherent sense, to be honest. And this goofy "running away" bravado horse-crap is super lame.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
914
Points
140
you did not include what I have highlighted in his quote
Yeah, because I don't completely concur with "the mind is the physical brain." Duh. But I can easily acknowledge that a consensus of neurologists do. You can't. So what? Speaking of "running away" - you never get around to explaining what this obsession of yours with flora vs fauna is really all about. Your use of "physiology" clearly means something very concrete to you. Meanwhile, it's far too ambiguous a term to reveal much of anything to the rest of us. This is what GT means by "not making any coherent sense."
 

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
74,454
Reaction score
10,454
Points
2,030
you did not include what I have highlighted in his quote
Yeah, because I don't completely concur with "the mind is the physical brain." Duh. But I can easily acknowledge that a consensus of neurologists do. You can't. So what? Speaking of "running away" - you never get around to explaining what this obsession of yours with flora vs fauna is really all about. Your use of "physiology" clearly means something very concrete to you. Meanwhile, it's far too ambiguous a term to reveal much of anything to the rest of us. This is what GT means by "not making any coherent sense."
What do you think about the 'mind?'

My thing is that all of the evidence we've learned in neurology...from personality disorders, to mapping memories, mapping emotions, mapping pain, studying physical brain injuries' effects on the self and bodily functions...it all points to the brain itself as being the 'mother board,' so to speak. I've seen no definitive evidence to the contrary. What tells the skin to feel pain when it's burned? Why do we need to re-learn speech and walking after some Strokes? Why does alcohol lower inhibitions, why do hallucinogens(chemicals) enhance(and distort) our ability to perceive?

Even the Mary's Room scenario regarding qualia experience has sound answers to it, preserving a physicalist interpretation of the mind.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
35,717
Reaction score
4,188
Points
1,130
This an opinion piece.

There is absolutely no evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny that a soul exists or that your mind somehow extends beyond your body.
That's not even really what it's saying. The article isn't positing anything supernatural. It's simply claiming that the mind isn't the same as the phsyical brain (in the same way software isn't the same thing as a computer), and, to the extent that our minds interact with other minds, they are interconnected. No magic here. No religion.
The mind is the activity of the brain.

Without the brain there is no mind. Without the body there is no brain

There is no mind body duality
Yep. Just like a computer program is inert unless it's running on a computer. But they're still not the same thing.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
73,653
Reaction score
5,002
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,056
Reaction score
545
Points
85
it leaves you two where you belong - together in brain land.

flora has no brain and evolved before fauna
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following:
You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
Seriously.
.
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following: seriously
I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain. You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
.
you did not include what I have highlighted in his quote - to begin with. did he refer to either flora or fauna. he is referring to physiology, the statement is inaccurate.
.
View attachment 391660
.
what has the "evolutionary biology in plants" have to do with "I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain" -

seriously, they have run away and so will you.
You're babbling and not making any coherent sense, to be honest. And this goofy "running away" bravado horse-crap is super lame.
.
You're babbling and not making any coherent sense, to be honest. And this goofy "running away" bravado horse-crap is super lame.
.
you can not account for flora that is relative to your statement about the physiological brain, cns nor offer a response to metamorphosis as a real life example of physiological dynamism indeterminate of a recreated cns you fail to explain - your coherency babel is nothing new as when you have nothing more to contribute.
 

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
74,454
Reaction score
10,454
Points
2,030
it leaves you two where you belong - together in brain land.

flora has no brain and evolved before fauna
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following:
You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
Seriously.
.
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following: seriously
I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain. You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
.
you did not include what I have highlighted in his quote - to begin with. did he refer to either flora or fauna. he is referring to physiology, the statement is inaccurate.
.
View attachment 391660
.
what has the "evolutionary biology in plants" have to do with "I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain" -

seriously, they have run away and so will you.
You're babbling and not making any coherent sense, to be honest. And this goofy "running away" bravado horse-crap is super lame.
.
You're babbling and not making any coherent sense, to be honest. And this goofy "running away" bravado horse-crap is super lame.
.
you can not account for flora that is relative to your statement about the physiological brain, cns nor offer a response to metamorphosis as a real life example of physiological dynamism indeterminate of a recreated cns you fail to explain - your coherency babel is nothing new as when you have nothing more to contribute.
This thread is about the brain/soul distinction, not about the micro-biology of a plant. You need medication.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
914
Points
140
What do you think about the 'mind?'

My thing is that all of the evidence we've learned in neurology...from personality disorders, to mapping memories, mapping emotions, mapping pain, studying physical brain injuries' effects on the self and bodily functions...it all points to the brain itself as being the 'mother board,' so to speak. I've seen no definitive evidence to the contrary. What tells the skin to feel pain when it's burned? Why do we need to re-learn speech and walking after some Strokes? Why does alcohol lower inhibitions, why do hallucinogens(chemicals) enhance(and distort) our ability to perceive?

Even the Mary's Room scenario regarding qualia experience has sound answers to it, preserving a physicalist interpretation of the mind.
Tough question, obviously. My problem with a strictly physicalist interpretation stems from Heisenberg Uncertainty. We really can't know what's happening at the smallest (nor largest for that matter) levels. There may easily be shit going on that we'll never be able to quantitatively measure or "observe" scientifically.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,056
Reaction score
545
Points
85
Every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end.
.
and the changes over time are metaphysically transitive from parent to offspring no different than the completion of a sculpture as a finished product.
 

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
74,454
Reaction score
10,454
Points
2,030
What do you think about the 'mind?'

My thing is that all of the evidence we've learned in neurology...from personality disorders, to mapping memories, mapping emotions, mapping pain, studying physical brain injuries' effects on the self and bodily functions...it all points to the brain itself as being the 'mother board,' so to speak. I've seen no definitive evidence to the contrary. What tells the skin to feel pain when it's burned? Why do we need to re-learn speech and walking after some Strokes? Why does alcohol lower inhibitions, why do hallucinogens(chemicals) enhance(and distort) our ability to perceive?

Even the Mary's Room scenario regarding qualia experience has sound answers to it, preserving a physicalist interpretation of the mind.
Tough question, obviously. My problem with a strictly physicalist interpretation stems from Heisenberg Uncertainty. We really can't know what's happening at the smallest (nor largest for that matter) levels. There may easily be shit going on that we'll never be able to quantitatively measure or "observe" scientifically.
Sean Carroll bridges the gaps way better than I ever could, but he speaks to this if you ever want to check him out. H breaks down the observer effect really practically and explains how it's not shenanigans' with consciousness.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,721
Reaction score
914
Points
140
What do you think about the 'mind?'

My thing is that all of the evidence we've learned in neurology...from personality disorders, to mapping memories, mapping emotions, mapping pain, studying physical brain injuries' effects on the self and bodily functions...it all points to the brain itself as being the 'mother board,' so to speak. I've seen no definitive evidence to the contrary. What tells the skin to feel pain when it's burned? Why do we need to re-learn speech and walking after some Strokes? Why does alcohol lower inhibitions, why do hallucinogens(chemicals) enhance(and distort) our ability to perceive?

Even the Mary's Room scenario regarding qualia experience has sound answers to it, preserving a physicalist interpretation of the mind.
Tough question, obviously. My problem with a strictly physicalist interpretation stems from Heisenberg Uncertainty. We really can't know what's happening at the smallest (nor largest for that matter) levels. There may easily be shit going on that we'll never be able to quantitatively measure or "observe" scientifically.
Sean Carroll bridges the gaps way better than I ever could, but he speaks to this if you ever want to check him out. H breaks down the observer effect really practically and explains how it's not shenanigans' with consciousness.
Subscribed to his podcast. Thanks!
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,056
Reaction score
545
Points
85
it leaves you two where you belong - together in brain land.

flora has no brain and evolved before fauna
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following:
You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
Seriously.
.
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following: seriously
I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain. You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
.
you did not include what I have highlighted in his quote - to begin with. did he refer to either flora or fauna. he is referring to physiology, the statement is inaccurate.
.
View attachment 391660
.
what has the "evolutionary biology in plants" have to do with "I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain" -

seriously, they have run away and so will you.
You're babbling and not making any coherent sense, to be honest. And this goofy "running away" bravado horse-crap is super lame.
.
You're babbling and not making any coherent sense, to be honest. And this goofy "running away" bravado horse-crap is super lame.
.
you can not account for flora that is relative to your statement about the physiological brain, cns nor offer a response to metamorphosis as a real life example of physiological dynamism indeterminate of a recreated cns you fail to explain - your coherency babel is nothing new as when you have nothing more to contribute.
This thread is about the brain/soul distinction, not about the micro-biology of a plant. You need medication.
.
This thread is about the brain/soul distinction, not about the micro-biology of a plant. You need medication.
wishful thinking ram, physiology the same as its spiritual content are both metaphysical that disappear when either is removed but in their physical state while "living" they are inseparable as no example exist for one or the other.
.
the above is my initial post - where is yours that includes - "brain/soul distinction" (The consensus in Neurology is that the mind is merely the brain) -

you are disingenuous at best, unable to legitimately discuss the spiritual content of physiology when given physical evidence contrary to your initial statement you offer without the least amount of content.
 

G.T.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
74,454
Reaction score
10,454
Points
2,030
it leaves you two where you belong - together in brain land.

flora has no brain and evolved before fauna
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following:
You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
Seriously.
.
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following: seriously
I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain. You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
.
you did not include what I have highlighted in his quote - to begin with. did he refer to either flora or fauna. he is referring to physiology, the statement is inaccurate.
.
View attachment 391660
.
what has the "evolutionary biology in plants" have to do with "I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain" -

seriously, they have run away and so will you.
You're babbling and not making any coherent sense, to be honest. And this goofy "running away" bravado horse-crap is super lame.
.
You're babbling and not making any coherent sense, to be honest. And this goofy "running away" bravado horse-crap is super lame.
.
you can not account for flora that is relative to your statement about the physiological brain, cns nor offer a response to metamorphosis as a real life example of physiological dynamism indeterminate of a recreated cns you fail to explain - your coherency babel is nothing new as when you have nothing more to contribute.
This thread is about the brain/soul distinction, not about the micro-biology of a plant. You need medication.
.
This thread is about the brain/soul distinction, not about the micro-biology of a plant. You need medication.
wishful thinking ram, physiology the same as its spiritual content are both metaphysical that disappear when either is removed but in their physical state while "living" they are inseparable as no example exist for one or the other.
.
the above is my initial post - where is yours that includes - "brain/soul distinction" (The consensus in Neurology is that the mind is merely the brain) -

you are disingenuous at best, unable to legitimately discuss the spiritual content of physiology when given physical evidence contrary to your initial statement you offer without the least amount of content.
You didnt provide the evidence you thought, it seems is the problem. An organism experiencing change without a Brain is not evidence of a soul, ya friggin dope.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
1,931
Points
195
This an opinion piece.

There is absolutely no evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny that a soul exists or that your mind somehow extends beyond your body.
That's not even really what it's saying. The article isn't positing anything supernatural. It's simply claiming that the mind isn't the same as the phsyical brain (in the same way software isn't the same thing as a computer), and, to the extent that our minds interact with other minds, they are interconnected. No magic here. No religion.
The mind is the activity of the brain.

Without the brain there is no mind. Without the body there is no brain

There is no mind body duality
Yep. Just like a computer program is inert unless it's running on a computer. But they're still not the same thing.
Year they are.

No one wrote the code that you say is needed for the brain to make the mind

There is no code.

The mind is a natural product of the brain it does not come from outside the body
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
35,717
Reaction score
4,188
Points
1,130
This an opinion piece.

There is absolutely no evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny that a soul exists or that your mind somehow extends beyond your body.
That's not even really what it's saying. The article isn't positing anything supernatural. It's simply claiming that the mind isn't the same as the phsyical brain (in the same way software isn't the same thing as a computer), and, to the extent that our minds interact with other minds, they are interconnected. No magic here. No religion.
The mind is the activity of the brain.

Without the brain there is no mind. Without the body there is no brain

There is no mind body duality
Yep. Just like a computer program is inert unless it's running on a computer. But they're still not the same thing.
Year they are.

No one wrote the code that you say is needed for the brain to make the mind

There is no code.

The mind is a natural product of the brain it does not come from outside the body
I never said it comes from "outside the body". Neither did the linked article. It seems you want to argue about something. Here: the sky is blue.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
1,931
Points
195
This an opinion piece.

There is absolutely no evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny that a soul exists or that your mind somehow extends beyond your body.
That's not even really what it's saying. The article isn't positing anything supernatural. It's simply claiming that the mind isn't the same as the phsyical brain (in the same way software isn't the same thing as a computer), and, to the extent that our minds interact with other minds, they are interconnected. No magic here. No religion.
The mind is the activity of the brain.

Without the brain there is no mind. Without the body there is no brain

There is no mind body duality
Yep. Just like a computer program is inert unless it's running on a computer. But they're still not the same thing.
Year they are.

No one wrote the code that you say is needed for the brain to make the mind

There is no code.

The mind is a natural product of the brain it does not come from outside the body
I never said it comes from "outside the body". Neither did the linked article. It seems you want to argue about something. Here: the sky is blue.
The article stated that the mind somehow extends beyond the body it doesn't.

And yes I am arguing that the mind and the body are the same thing one cannot exist without the other.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
35,717
Reaction score
4,188
Points
1,130
This an opinion piece.

There is absolutely no evidence that can withstand scientific scrutiny that a soul exists or that your mind somehow extends beyond your body.
That's not even really what it's saying. The article isn't positing anything supernatural. It's simply claiming that the mind isn't the same as the phsyical brain (in the same way software isn't the same thing as a computer), and, to the extent that our minds interact with other minds, they are interconnected. No magic here. No religion.
The mind is the activity of the brain.

Without the brain there is no mind. Without the body there is no brain

There is no mind body duality
Yep. Just like a computer program is inert unless it's running on a computer. But they're still not the same thing.
Year they are.

No one wrote the code that you say is needed for the brain to make the mind

There is no code.

The mind is a natural product of the brain it does not come from outside the body
I never said it comes from "outside the body". Neither did the linked article. It seems you want to argue about something. Here: the sky is blue.
The article stated that the mind somehow extends beyond the body it doesn't.

And yes I am arguing that the mind and the body are the same thing one cannot exist without the other.
OK
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,056
Reaction score
545
Points
85
it leaves you two where you belong - together in brain land.

flora has no brain and evolved before fauna
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following:
You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
Seriously.
.
Okay, lady with brain on the brain. I concur with the following: seriously
I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain. You're talking about evolutionary biology in plants. Leave me alone, I've seen your caterpillar to butterfly dopey shit before...it's wholly uninteresting to me.
.
you did not include what I have highlighted in his quote - to begin with. did he refer to either flora or fauna. he is referring to physiology, the statement is inaccurate.
.
View attachment 391660
.
what has the "evolutionary biology in plants" have to do with "I'm talking about how the mind is the physical brain" -

seriously, they have run away and so will you.
You're babbling and not making any coherent sense, to be honest. And this goofy "running away" bravado horse-crap is super lame.
.
You're babbling and not making any coherent sense, to be honest. And this goofy "running away" bravado horse-crap is super lame.
.
you can not account for flora that is relative to your statement about the physiological brain, cns nor offer a response to metamorphosis as a real life example of physiological dynamism indeterminate of a recreated cns you fail to explain - your coherency babel is nothing new as when you have nothing more to contribute.
This thread is about the brain/soul distinction, not about the micro-biology of a plant. You need medication.
.
This thread is about the brain/soul distinction, not about the micro-biology of a plant. You need medication.
wishful thinking ram, physiology the same as its spiritual content are both metaphysical that disappear when either is removed but in their physical state while "living" they are inseparable as no example exist for one or the other.
.
the above is my initial post - where is yours that includes - "brain/soul distinction" (The consensus in Neurology is that the mind is merely the brain) -

you are disingenuous at best, unable to legitimately discuss the spiritual content of physiology when given physical evidence contrary to your initial statement you offer without the least amount of content.
You didnt provide the evidence you thought, it seems is the problem. An organism experiencing change without a Brain is not evidence of a soul, ya friggin dope.
.
You didnt provide the evidence you thought, it seems is the problem. An organism experiencing change without a Brain is not evidence of a soul, ya friggin dope.
.
as stated with visible evidence the distinct spiritual content in association with physiology: physiology the same as its spiritual content are both metaphysical that disappear when either is removed but in their physical state while "living" they are inseparable as no example exist for one or the other. -

are there blobs of physiology laying on the ground void of spiritual content. something "mindless" you pick up and eat. no.
.
I've noted your lack of links but assume you have them -
.
1600801537281.png

.
I have provided the reasoning and physical proof of the process where physiology is guided by its spiritual content when changing from one being into another - the visual proof is far more than your ambiguous statements about "you are your brain".

particularly when you ignore half the life forms on Earth, flora that has neither a brain nor cns and displays openly its spiritual content - in such a way as knowingly attracting fauna as a means for reproduction.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top