Science has to follow the facts and data. What fact and data is there that isn't the brain as the only basis for what we call the "mind"? From what I see it is the religious and philosohical that assumes there is something other than the material and brain that causes "mind".
It is also the religious and the philosophical that considers mind to be nothing but the brain. Science doesn't consider it that. Science does not make such proclamations of belief. I don't think you realize that you are doing philosophy and not science, but assume that because to you science seems to affirm that view, that that is "what science says".
This is why I keep making this comparison to the most obvious of the religionists, the fundamentalists, who are blind to their own views and interpretations of the data when they announce, "It's not my words, but God's words. It says it right there in the Bible." What they are failing to see is that other people reading those exact same words have a different view or understanding of the texts.
Same thing now applied to "what science says". No, science, or the Bible, doesn't conclude that. Your's, or their interpretation of it makes them or you feel that "It's not my idea, but sciences. It's not my words, but God's words". Same difference. Both are their own philosophical interpretations of the words.
Science uses a reductionist methodology to analyze the data as a tool. But that does not mean that science has a reductionist worldview as a philosophical position. There is a difference between these.
As we know religion and philosophy doesn't have standards to follow, so anything goes.
That is a false statement. There are of course standards that they follow. I'm not sure how you justify that, actually. Have you ever heard of "orthodoxy", for one example? What is that if not measuring ideas and views against a standard?
Some who accept these ideas as valid accuse science of lagging behind. Any sort of wild guessing is acceptable in philosophy, but not in science.
In that case, I'd say they are making the exact same error you are, and you are making the exact same error as them. They, and you, set your own worldview as the true standard, and anything that doesn't meet or match that standard is "lagging behind".
To my mind the only thing outside the brain that contributes to "mind" is experiences with the environment and other people. These do impact and help shape what "minds" end up being.
I'd really enjoy hearing a definition of "mind" here. That would be helpful in not crossing wires. Are we talking that collective pool of thoughts and ideas and values and personality traits and what not we amass together and call the "person" or the "self"?
As we see many folks are claiming certain elelments of experience as immaterial, and it is true if immaterial is misapplied. Experiences are not objects that are subject to being categorized as material or immaterial, so these claims are misapplied.
Any subjective experience that we look at or talk about, takes on the nature of an object, even if it is immaterial in nature. A subjective experience is a 1st person experience. A view of a subjective experience is a 3rd person person perspective of a 1st person experience, and therefore that 3rd person perspective is taking an objective view. It is seeing or analyzing a 1st person experience, as 3rd person object.
In other words, subjective vs objective really has more to do with perspectives, than it does anything to do with physicality or not.
