Is it Folly Searching for Mind Within the Brain?

Let me lay out the chain of reasoning that drives this challenge.

It starts with accepting the reality of this physically evolving Earth around me. I know I’m not imaginative enough to conjure up this vision of the miracle planet I live on. Seems to me, it has to be one or the other. If it’s real, it goes back billions of years, and evolution actually happened one day at a time.

Once that’s out of the way, the rest ought to be easy. Evolution, that is — change over time. First Earth, geology, and chemistry, working together with time — lots of time.

Then geology and chemistry figured out how to harness electricity, via the Krebs cycle and such.

I believe it’s honest to suggest this is the birth of biology. By and by, chemistry, geology, and biology created ever more complex “electrified” molecular components — that is, molecular biology — eventually figuring out how to colonize themselves. Up to here, it’s all pretty much spontaneous electro-magnetic interactions.

About the same time, that is, four billion years ago, something else astonishing happened. “Membranes” started showing up. I believe it is reasonable to suppose that this is where “awareness” made its first appearance. The membrane must know what belongs on the inside — and how much of it — also what needs to be excreted. It must also know what to allow in and how to keep the whole cell on an even keel, so to speak.

With growing complexity, sensing, processing, motion, and strategy become increasingly important. And we haven’t even made it out of the microscopic scale.

As creature bodies become ever more competent at basic survival functions, they have an increasing amount of processing space and energy available for doing more. We come from a line of animals with increasing skills, physical and mental. Consider our mammalian forbearers with their family bonds and ability to communicate and cooperate with each other. We are a continuation of that trajectory and gene pool.

This brings us to the title question and why I suggest that searching for the mind within the brain is a dead end.

Body + Brain + Interaction (interior & exterior) = Mind (consciousness).
Remove any of those and consciousness collapses. What are we left with?

A realization that our consciousness is best understood as an interior reflection of our body dealing with life. (See Solms, Damasio, Sapolsky, Wilson-Sloan, etc. for details.)

Everything we know and experience is filtered through our body and its many sensing organs and systems. Our body is the only connection to the physical world we have — be it a calculator or a lover. Our body is the instrument through which we present ourselves to the world, and our physical self is what the outside world is looking at and talking to.

Scientists have shown us how our senses work in excruciating detail. Our brain may be our central processing organ, but within our body scientists have discovered other discrete information processing centers, along our spinal cord; in our guts with the enteric nervous system; our immune system’s cytokine signaling; and the heart’s sinoatrial node.

Not to be overlooked is the newly recognized functions of fascia, the connective tissue between muscle bundles that sports curious communication channels running throughout our musculature, communicating with itself, and reporting — helping our brain know what our body is doing.

It’s mind boggling, and I bet I’m missing some, and that scientists still have some to discover.

When it comes to understanding the so-called “hard problem of what gives rise to subjective, qualitative experience,” we need to realize that it takes a whole lot more than simply a brain to create an experience. It requires a holistic, spot-on biological symphony.

The bat feels like the bat, and being there feels different from looking at the postcard, because it’s a whole-body experience — a series of momentary, unique, vital connections to the living experience as they race through your living body.

Mind is the product of the entire body-brain system interacting with the living moment, interior and exterior. What else can it be?

Philosophically fixating on the brain as the source of consciousness feels to me like a reflection of our own all too human self-absorption, and it is emblematic of our general disconnect from the rest of this planet Earth that created us to begin with.

This is a good place to put in a plug for appreciating the Physical Reality–Human Mind divide, along with its cascading implications. Seems to me it’s a first-base concept, a prerequisite before the rest of our human condition can start making rational sense. Then we can start taking responsibility for the consciousness that our evolved biological body produces.

What do you think?

Thank you for your time and I hope interest.

Mind is already defined as the faculty for consciousness. It’s not defined as existing in the brain. I don’t know what it is you are distinguishing. I don’t know Chalmers details well enough to know if he says consciousness is strictly a brain function, but if he does, that’s a critique of him, not of all the other valid ideas about consciousness.

Then I reckon you need to read it with more attentiveness.

And how much time have you spent thinking about them?

Here’s an interesting intro:

1. Introduction

The scientific investigation of consciousness has made considerable progress in recent decades.

Nevertheless, the core problem persists: How can a physical-biological system like the brain give rise to subjective experience? Numerous theories attempt to bridge this gap, but most fall into a hidden trap: they operate with implicit or explicit forms of dualism.

How long have we been discussing this?

To clarify. I agree with you that body/brain = mind. I don’t care that much about Chalmers, feel free to rip into him all you want. Where we seem to differ is that I think a lot of people agree with you about what the mind is.

Consciousness is pluralistic

Data-processing in the brain is our experiencing. But the brain has many regions. According to neuroscientific data not all data-processing comes to awareness; some information might dwell and come later into awareness, some information is lost, and hybrid states exist: partial informational loss and small delay. Philosophical numberism: declaring something a monism, dualism, triadism/triplism, pluralism has domains (fields of application). Physical monists want to emphasize antisupernaturalism but erroneously generalize and simplify. Some questions are open in science. All open questions examined here are logical/antisupernatural.

The non-monism of the brain according to rigorous neuroscience is a fact.
The supernatural isn’t included. Physicalism holds.
Brains aren’t mereological simples; they are mereological complexes.
They have parts. Not all regional data-processing is integrated into
a monistic mereological simple awareness.
Consciousness is agitational coherence at the brainstem level,
becomes more complicated in the midbrain, and reaches higher complexity
at the cerebrum.
Consciousness requires a connectome with a hierarchical progression of complexity
with agitation and data-processing coherence centers (see: Mark Solms).
Not everything immediately in the brain permanently reaches consciousness.

Brain-mind monism is semi-correct when describing the integrated functioning part
at the exact moment of brain activation, but it’s not all the brain,
and it’s not constantly the same regions.
It’s semi-correct because delays in integration, gradience (degrees), partial deletions,
and other phenomena are at play.
In zero time we have zero consciousness; consciousness takes time.
Brain function is not a pure immediate monistic (mereological simple) action
and this is of profound importance to consciousness; otherwise it cannot exist.
Subtle explanations are required. Even famous people make erroneous descriptions.
The vast majority of philosophers make scientific mistakes.
The cognitive neuroscientst Nancy Kanwisher is very good.

Monism isn’t a fundamental property in nature.
Fundamentalism (origin from a mereological simple kernel)
is impossible being stationary and ideal;
it requires a God because it rejects
a more fundamental ontological continuum
of relations and interactions (see: Everettism, cyclic cosmology,
relational quantum mechanics (by Carlo Rovelli).

Even famous atheists sometimes say erroneous things
distorting our understanding of nature to simplistically
debunk supernaturalism. Supernaturalism has impossible foundations
and supernaturalists leave too many gaps in their descriptions
thus correctly describing nature doesn’t introduce supernatural teleology
or other non-materializable causality violations.

This has nothing to do with my OP.
Supernaturalism has nothing to do with anything I’m referencing and I wouldn’t even know how to discuss it.

True enough it’s a human conception, that we tend to turn into intellectual rhetorical indulgences and distractions, that I don’t see the need for.

For me, the answers are in our evolutionary biology.
And in a keen respect for our human condition, that is, the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide.

With the realization that my body is the product of half a billion years worth of 100% successful generations, plus a few billion years of prep work before that.

Along with a fundamental first order theory of consciousness, based on scientific understanding. "Our consciousness is the inside reflection of our body communicating with itself as it’s navigating life (interior and exterior). "

1 Like

@omniaxiomaticity ,
Cutting and pasting is discouraged on this site.

I don’t know what this site is, or who wrote this, but it is verbatim what you have here

You’re posts are like blogs, not engagement with this community

It’s me. Miraheze deletes pages you don’t edit after some time. Fandom keeps it.

So, you post on other sites that aren’t really designed for your type of articles. Surprise, surprise.

The Fandom text was created first for this page. See the dates.

Your wrong on “you don’t say something new”. It’s not only newness that matters but the connectome of ideas. I don’t see brilliance from you on specific things. If you like atheism (negationism[s]) antisupernaturalism refutes anything supernatural. The hypernymization of religion and the hypernym or hypernyms of atheism is important for many reasons: people have fewer rights when they are miscategorized. The atheists (or antisupernaturalists, or rational physicalists for people who like affirmativisms) aren’t respected in most countries, and rationalism isn’t celebrated culturally and with dedicated days and science popularization events as supernaturalisms. Many countries have state religions. You cannot have a right which isn’t categorized; or you can have it diminished but as a general category. The British and the Swedish monarch have to be Christians. Understanding the categories of things isn’t the only but one paths to equality.

Mark Solms is a psychoanalyst. The dominant view in rigorous science is against psychoanalysis. It clinically works with good doctors andpatients who want it but not necessarily the way it’s presented in the psychoanalytic books AND SOME PSYCHOANALYSTS ARE PRAGMATISTS AND ADMIT IT. Some times (there is no guarantee) psychoanalysis is a good series of monologues (with minimal debating or some guidance) in a relatively relaxed environment. Some patients feel relaxed, others not. Some people simply want to be listened and non-professionals aren’t patient enough to do a proper listening. I’m not a zero by claiming the obvious. And yes. It’s obvious I am stupid for saying stupid simple things but not all basic things are wrong and by no means everyone speaks about the obvious.

No I work on why “simple atheism” = non-metaphysical physicalism cannot work. A common claim for some is that we must “keep it simple”, or even complicated but without metaphysical questions and foundations, which is impossible even in strict methodological empiricism (experiment and observation).

And of course I’m stupid. What I say is known but I didn’t see you elaborating on it.

Some topics are beyond stupidity and intelligence.

They are matters of conceptual structure, categorization, and seeing connections that are easy to miss even when the individual ideas themselves are simple.

Meaningless comment

Non sequitur

What?

Oh, is that what you are doing. I couldn’t tell.

I can’t elaborate on your nonsensical meanderings with big words that don’t add up to much of anything other than statements that sometimes happen to be true.

1 Like