Mind is more than the brain

[godnotgod]

So...the "ghost" was intractable...meaning you could suppose its existence, but in no way demonstrate it.

But you might directly experience it beyond the shadow of any doubt, as when the Buddha realized his own Supreme Enlightenment. Once experienced, there is no impetus to demonstrate it, because part of the experience is that everyone is already enlightened, though they haven't realized it yet. But you can point to the moon, which the Buddha did, though reluctantly. He left a legacy of incredible teachings of unmistakable worth and authenticity.

Personally, I don't give credence to an individual soul, or self, but to soul itself, or Universal Self. But to get to this, the personal self of Identification must first be subdued to get it's machinations out of the way.

 

[George-ananda]

Is that enough, do you really think, to move from "suppose" to "assert" its existence?

The assertion of more than the physical comes from the arguments made by the author in the article. I add to that my assertion from my study of the paranormal and spiritual.

And having done so, does it allow you to say anything whatsoever about what it is, how it works, how it comes to be, or anything else at all about it?. And if so....what?

I believe there are spiritual and psychic masters that can tell us much about those things (similar to master scientists telling us about physical things).

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I believe there are spiritual and psychic masters that can tell us much about those things (similar to master scientists telling us about physical things).

The interesting thing is, however, that it is generally possible to replicate how science demonstrates physical truths, while "psychic masters" still rely only on your belief...unless, of course, you can do it yourself. I can do the science, I'm hopelessly unable to do the psychic.

 

[George-ananda]

The interesting thing is, however, that it is generally possible to replicate how science demonstrates physical truths, while "psychic masters" still rely only on your belief...unless, of course, you can do it yourself. I can do the science, I'm hopelessly unable to do the psychic.

First step is concluding from my study of the paranormal that the physical-only model can not explain it all.

Learning about the non-physical involves more than ‘faith’ for those not so psychically gifted. There are many teachers and esoteric schools that can be studied and compared. Also the models of the non-physical fromthese schools can be studied as to how well they make sense of real paranormal experiences of people. I became convinced by the dovetailing of so many things into a unified worldview.

 

[Milton Platt]

A short article that uses science to support the reality of the soul or mind beyond the brain.

https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/reconciliation/science-and-the-soul

Nothing scientific in the article to support such a claim. What happens to the mind when the brain is damaged? The mind is altered or diminished in capacity.

 

[ERLOS]

Ah, but the signal is still present, brain or no brain. Consciousness is non-local, contrary to both popular and scientific opinion.

Exactly

 

[ERLOS]

Nothing scientific in the article to support such a claim. What happens to the mind when the brain is damaged? The mind is altered or diminished in capacity.

What happens to the Internet signal when the computer is damaged?

 

[ERLOS]

The interesting thing is, however, that it is generally possible to replicate how science demonstrates physical truths, while "psychic masters" still rely only on your belief...unless, of course, you can do it yourself. I can do the science, I'm hopelessly unable to do the psychic.

Science, great though it is, covers only 4% of the known universe, the other 96% is in dark energy and dark matter which are just names for problems. Of the 4% known, 50% to 90% of the energy is still an accounted for.

 

[siti]

First step is concluding from my study of the paranormal that the physical-only model can not explain it all.

Sorry George, but that implies that we know all there is to know about the physical - of course we are very far from that.

There is no reason to assume that apparently "paranormal" events (assuming that they are 'real' events) may not turn out to have a physical origin. After all, we used to imagine that thunder and lightening, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, the appearance of unusual celestial bodies and phenomena in the sky and certain illnesses (for a few examples) had 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' explanations - most of these have succumbed to scientific explanation. There remains quite a lot we haven't explained yet (including, as someone has already pointed out, most of the energy of the universe for example) - perhaps even some things that will never yield to scientific probing - but that doesn't imply that it is not physical in origin - just that there is a limit to our understanding.

 

[ERLOS]

Sorry George, but that implies that we know all there is to know about the physical - of course we are very far from that.

There is no reason to assume that apparently "paranormal" events (assuming that they are 'real' events) may not turn out to have a physical origin. After all, we used to imagine that thunder and lightening, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, the appearance of unusual celestial bodies and phenomena in the sky and certain illnesses (for a few examples) had 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' explanations - most of these have succumbed to scientific explanation. There remains quite a lot we haven't explained yet (including, as someone has already pointed out, most of the energy of the universe for example) - perhaps even some things that will never yield to scientific probing - but that doesn't imply that it is not physical in origin - just that there is a limit to our understanding.

This is the 'naturalness' argument: we don't know yet, but we will. Not very convincing, imo

 

[siti]

This is the 'naturalness' argument: we don't know yet, but we will. Not very convincing, imo

I wasn't making an argument - I was simply pointing out that, as you say, "we don't know yet". I don't necessarily share your optimism that we ever will know. I suspect we'll just keep on peeling back layer after layer and there will always be something we can't properly explain - and people will always use that as a loophole to smuggle supernaturalism in by the back door. Personally, I think nature is quite weird enough without any help from above or beyond itself.

 

[ERLOS]

I wasn't making an argument - I was simply pointing out that, as you say, "we don't know yet". I don't necessarily share your optimism that we ever will know. I suspect we'll just keep on peeling back layer after layer and there will always be something we can't properly explain - and people will always use that as a loophole to smuggle supernaturalism in by the back door. Personally, I think nature is quite weird enough without any help from above or beyond itself.

Sorry, I realised my post may have been taken as argumentative, so I added a wink emoji. There's a lot of stuff that is always going to lie outside scientific proveability? I do think the mind isn't ever going to be properly understood by mapping brain patterns and so on. But of course that's just my own opinion.

 

[siti]

Sorry, I realised my post may have been taken as argumentative, so I added a wink emoji.

Not at all - I didn't take your post as argumentative - I just wanted to make sure that you didn't think mine was meant to be 'an argument' - it wasn't - just an observation.

I do think the mind isn't ever going to be properly understood by mapping brain patterns and so on.

I agree as much as I agree with Shroedinger's contention that "the sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves" - it is true, but you couldn't possibly hope to have a proper account of the sensation of colour that failed to include the "physicists objective picture of light waves" - or even worse, that denied the validity of that picture. And its the same with the mind/brain problem. I certainly don't think we could hope to understand the mind without "mapping brain patterns and so on" - do you?

 

[ERLOS]

Not at all - I didn't take your post as argumentative - I just wanted to make sure that you didn't think mine was meant to be 'an argument' - it wasn't - just an observation.

I agree as much as I agree with Shroedinger's contention that "the sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves" - it is true, but you couldn't possibly hope to have a proper account of the sensation of colour that failed to include the "physicists objective picture of light waves" - or even worse, that denied the validity of that picture. And its the same with the mind/brain problem. I certainly don't think we could hope to understand the mind without "mapping brain patterns and so on" - do you?

Last sentence: I think mapping brain patterns helps understand the brain. Partly helps understand the common everyday mind employed to do everyday stuff. Does it help understand the 'mind'? Would mapping Einstein's mind help understand where his inspiration came from?

Phrased as questions, but direct answers not required. Please forgive me if i don't really want to get involved in detailed point by point discussion here.

 

[Milton Platt]

What happens to the Internet signal when the computer is damaged?

A brain is not an electronic computer storing nothing but ones and zeros, so your analogy is very weak. What happens to a computer when it is damaged depends upon the damage, and has no bearing upon a brain. What "signal" are you talking about?

 

[ERLOS]

A brain is not an electronic computer storing nothing but ones and zeros, so your analogy is very weak. What happens to a computer when it is damaged depends upon the damage, and has no bearing upon a brain. What "signal" are you talking about?

It's an ANALOGY!

What happens to a damaged brain also depends on the damage, obviously.

Signal? The signal that gave Mozart his music and Michaelangelo his art, Einstein his physics, Kasparov his chess ability. Something like that, perhaps?

 

[Nicholas]

I have forgotten if it was Ruskin? who said something like "Noble ethics purifies the mind so deeper truths can be known." Here is another Sage (Blavatsky) giving the ethical key to knowing:

"As long as intellectual progress will refuse to accept a subordinate position to ethical progress, and egotism will not give way to Altruism, happiness for all the members of humanity will remain a Utopia."

So we are not limited to faith in the spiritual or faith in science (or one lifetime of course.)

 

[Milton Platt]

It's an ANALOGY!

What happens to a damaged brain also depends on the damage, obviously.

Signal? The signal that gave Mozart his music and Michaelangelo his art, Einstein his physics, Kasparov his chess ability. Something like that, perhaps?

I acknowledged that it was an analogy, and pointed out that it was a weak one.
Still don't know what signal you are talking about. Mozart, Einstein, and Kasparov used the ability to think to do the things they did, just like you are using the ability to think when you post to this forum. No difference, except perhaps in creativity, analytical ability, etc.

 

[George-ananda]

Sorry George, but that implies that we know all there is to know about the physical - of course we are very far from that.

There is no reason to assume that apparently "paranormal" events (assuming that they are 'real' events) may not turn out to have a physical origin. After all, we used to imagine that thunder and lightening, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, the appearance of unusual celestial bodies and phenomena in the sky and certain illnesses (for a few examples) had 'paranormal' or 'supernatural' explanations - most of these have succumbed to scientific explanation. There remains quite a lot we haven't explained yet (including, as someone has already pointed out, most of the energy of the universe for example) - perhaps even some things that will never yield to scientific probing - but that doesn't imply that it is not physical in origin - just that there is a limit to our understanding.

OK let me explain myself further and our differences might just be semantical. I was using the term 'physical' in the colloquial way meaning matter directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments in our normal three-dimensional linear time world.

Let me use so-called 'spirits' as an example. I believe they exist and are composed of a type of subtle matter not directly detectable by the grosser senses and instruments of the plane of reality we colloquially call the physical.

So strictly speaking spirits are even material, yes, and may someday open to study and detection by a science of the future (but we colloquially today speak of the physical and non-physical).

The paranormal has shown me 'dramatically important things lie beyond the reach of today's physical science' is what I meant.

 

[siti]

Last sentence: I think mapping brain patterns helps understand the brain. Partly helps understand the common everyday mind employed to do everyday stuff. Does it help understand the 'mind'? Would mapping Einstein's mind help understand where his inspiration came from?

Phrased as questions, but direct answers not required. Please forgive me if i don't really want to get involved in detailed point by point discussion here.

No - that's fine - we can certainly agree to having different viewpoints - especially on a subject for which there is no conclusive answer. I wonder which parts of our respective brains "light up" when we respectfully agree to differ - albeit ever so slightly.