A latter day Archimedes, I shout, "eureka!" — Michael Zwingli

Sapristi! :grin:

:sweat:

Cant we see the inner world as being on equal level with the outer physical world? — Prishon

This is a profound question. The "inner world" does not reflect the truth of the "outer world", which is truth itself...the truth of physical reality. That is why I generally like to refer to said "inner world" as "the/a world" ("the world" when the subjective experience is held in common, and "a/his/her/it's world" otherwise), and to said "outer world" as "the universe" or simply "reality". Even so, for human beings, and from the human perspective, the "world" is every bit as important as the "universe". This having been said, I would estimate that when dealing with matters concerning the individual or group human perspective, the "world" should be placed on an equal footing with the "universe". However, when dealing with questions of ultimate reality, especially with questions of "pure science", the "universe" should be given primacy of place. For instance, we humans cannot, in making our day-to-day decisions, base them upon the absolutely true fact that our bodies, being composed of atoms which themselves are upwards of 90% empty space, are themselves upwards of 90% empty space...

However, when dealing with questions of ultimate reality, especially with questions of "pure science", the "universe" should be given primacy of place. — Michael Zwingli

As a particle physicist I should agree wholeheartedly...But... isnt the particle picture, quantum fields of particles and their gauge field mediated interactions (fluctuating gauge fields taking care, in popular, virtual particle exchange) a mind's picture? I dont say this mental picture isnt pointing to the stuff in the outer physical world, but the appearance of that physical world is mind-dependent.

Can you please also bring in my quote that you are referring to? Thanks. — Alkis Piskas

"The relationship between the brain and the mind is a significant challenge both philosophically and scientifically. This is because of the difficulty in explaining how mental activities, such as thoughts and emotions, can be implemented by physical structures such as neurons and synapses, or by any other type of physical mechanism. This difficulty was expressed by Gottfried Leibniz in the analogy known as Leibniz's Mill"

surely, an important consideration.

The relationship between the brain and the mind is a significant challenge both philosophically and scientifically. This is because of the difficulty in explaining how mental activities, such as thoughts and emotions, can be implemented by physical structures such as neurons and synapses, or by any other type of physical mechanism. This difficulty was expressed by Gottfried Leibniz in the analogy known as Leibniz's Mill" — Manuel

Argument From Incredulity

Is this addressed to me? — Prishon

No, to @Cheshire. His name is mentioned in my comment ... Has TFP lost control?

I think I have... I mistook triangulation for trinity.

This is because of the difficulty in explaining how mental activities, such as thoughts and emotions, can be implemented by physical structures such as neurons and synapses, — Manuel

What's the difficulty?

Has TFP lost control? — Alkis Piskas

What do you mean by this?

If the brain isn't a person, then who is? — Luke

The spirit (soul), YOU, yourself, an awareness unit that is aware of being aware. None of these can be identified with the brain, a network of neurons that reveive and transmit signals in the form of particles or waves.

Has TFP lost control?
— Alkis Piskas
What do you mean by this? — Prishon

That TFP notified you about a post that mentioned your name, when your name wasn't in that post. (This is how I personally respond to comments, from TPF notifications to me.)
But then of course you can always select yourself and respond to a post that doesn't mention your name! :smile: I repeat, the post mentioned @Cheshire, not @Prishon.

I think I have... I mistook triangulation for trinity. — Prishon

OK, this explains it! :smile: (But still, it was addressed to @Cheshire! :grin:)

But then of course you can always select yourself and respond to a post that doesn't mention your name! :smile: I repeat, the post mentioned Cheshire, not @Prishon. — Alkis Piskas

WhenI replied I saw too late that it was addressed Chesire. I thought it was about the trinity theory. Instead of triangles... ☺

OK, this explains it! :smile: (But still, it was addressed to Cheshire! :grin:) — Alkis Piskas

No harm intende! ☺

Thank you for your response to the topic.
But I have first to "study" your long post before replying to you. :smile:
I will do that soon, after responding to a couple of other posts ...

If the brain isn't a person, then who is? — Luke

The body in between the inner and outer world. It has all the features of a person.

the thoughts produced by a hypothetical "brain kept alive in a jar" would be totally different, and so the "world" thus created would be totally different, from those of the same brain if it were part of a human body... — Michael Zwingli

The brains in a jar are impossible in principle.

The "inner world" does not reflect the truth of the "outer world — Michael Zwingli

I dont agree. Why not?

Can you please also bring in my quote that you are referring to? Thanks.
— Alkis Piskas
"The relationship between the brain and the mind is a significant challenge both philosophically and scientifically. This is because of the difficulty in explaining how mental activities, such as thoughts and emotions, can be implemented by physical structures such as neurons and synapses, or by any other type of physical mechanism. This difficulty was expressed by Gottfried Leibniz in the analogy known as Leibniz's Mill" — Manuel

Thanks. :smile: I can see why I couldn't connect your comment to something I said. It's because it referred to the above quotation, which I used from Wikipedia.
So, to reply now to your comment that "Matter is much stranger than how it appears to common sense" ... If by "stranger" you mean "complicated" and by "appears to common sense" you mean "appears when observing it", I agree! :smile:

A latter day Archimedes, I shout, "eureka!" — Michael Zwingli

At full volume!

WhenI replied I saw too late that it was addressed Chesire. I thought it was about the trinity theory. Instead of triangles — Prishon

OK, we have resolved this.

No harm intended — Prishon

I'm very certain about this! :smile:

☺

Argument From Incredulity — TheMadFool

No, the problem comes from asserting minds are brains. If minds are brains, then when I imagine a red sunset (or see a green afterimage), there's nothing red or green in my brain.
https://iep.utm.edu/identity/#H2

"A more serious objection to Mind-Brain Type Identity, one that to this day has not been satisfactorily resolved, concerns various non-intensional properties of mental states (on the one hand), and physical states (on the other). After-images, for example, may be green or purple in color, but nobody could reasonably claim that states of the brain are green or purple. And conversely, while brain states may be spatially located with a fair degree of accuracy, it has traditionally been assumed that mental states are non-spatial. The problem generated by examples such as these is that they appear to constitute violations of Leibniz’s Law, which states that if A is identical with B, then A and B must be indiscernible in the sense of having in common all of their (non-intensional) properties."

The so called hard problem, how could "dead and stupid matter" lead to mind. I think that phrasing it this way is misleading. There are many hard problems, not one.

So, to reply now to your comment that "Matter is much stranger than how it appears to common sense" ... If by "stranger" you mean "complicated" and by "appears to common sense" you mean "appears when observing it", I agree! — Alkis Piskas

:up:

There are many hard problems, not one. — Manuel

I had one this morning! No, just kidding. The thing is that matter is not just matter.

it can only be said that the person, rather than the brain, is thinking, because our thoughts are highly dependent upon the state of our bodies and are continuously effected by neurally transmitted information from our bodies. — Michael Zwingli

most thought, including all rational thought, interpretative thought and emotive thought, occurs as a result of brain activity — Michael Zwingli

Aren't these two statements-positions in conflict?

some memory seems to be stored in cells/tissues outside of the brain, in other parts of the body — Michael Zwingli

What part of the memory this is? Where is the remaining memory? You don't mention anything else about memory. Well, these are rhetorical questions, so you don't have to reply because they belong to some other topic.

This is not the same as saying that thought occurs "within the brain", though. — Michael Zwingli

It is, therefore, not wrong to say that thought "occurs in the brain" — Michael Zwingli

Again, aren't these two statements-positions in conflict?

Thought is a highly subjective human experience, and one person's thought cannot be said to have any reality outside of the body (using that term as inclusive of the brain) of that individual person. — Michael Zwingli

Thought is not a highly subjective human experience: it is a totally subjective experience. How could it have a reality (existence) outside the body?
(BTW, I have still to establish what is finally your position about whether thought is created and takes place inside or outside the body-brain ...)

***
I am sorry @Michael Zwingli, but at this point I have to leave the place because it got too late. I will try to continue my replying to you tomorrow.

I don't know or can understand what does this mean. Should I study monism or something? — Alkis Piskas

Not only is a specific thought based on a specific brain state, but failure to grasp a specific thought is a failure to assemble a specific brain state. Sorry you didn't understand it. Did anyone else? As a concept it's not that hard and you might not agree with it.