Someone here

It is often asserted that neurons and biological structures create and constitute what we humans label as the "mind". Consciousness is being accepted by some - though not all - as emergent from matter and biology; consciousness equals subset, matter equals super-set. I wish to argue against this, and provide a logical derivation that supports the notion of a relationship between the physiology of the brain and the so-called conscious intent and will of what I call the metaphysical "mind". From the lectures I've listened to and the articles I've read, I've come to the conclusion that many others have: That is, there is certainly a correlation between conscious experience and brain activity. There is a plethora of research one can reference to build an argument that most human actions (if not all) are controlled and regulated by one's brain and the effects of one's environment on neurological activity. This has been logically derived to form an assumption that our mind and self-awareness are also emergent from these interactions. Of course, we can't easily argue that the brain is not correlated to our personal, subjective experience of sensory input and cognitive thought. What we CAN argue, however, is if these are only correlations and not evidence of causation. We can argue and dispute whether or not the mind is separate from the brain. Let's assume two postulates are true for the sake of this argument: 1) Neurons are made of physical, biological matter. 2) The brains of animals that have at least the complexity of dogs, cats or primates are capable of reacting semi-intelligently to new information. I know this is observed in more than these families of organisms, but I want to restrict the conversation so that I may make my points concise. In order for us to observe the brain of any animal evolving and reacting according to its environment, we ought to realize that those interactions and changes are the products of new information coming through the animal's sensory input and being processed by the brain. This seems to suggest that its brain is capable of handling tasks without needing some outside force or activation. A dog shall naturally eat food and then excrete its waste, a cat shall naturally hunt birds and kneed with its paws. These naturally occurring processes don't require an animal to be completely aware of its actions - as it is very likely that dogs and cats have no (or at least a minimal) conscious awareness of their actions. They may feel and react to pain and stress, but we have no reason to suggest that they are fundamentally aware of their actions as we are. They simply perform, they don't necessarily think. Regardless of the lack of complete, holistic self-awareness. an animal's brain shall manage its own behavior. However, if the brain is made of matter as everything else is, and obeys the same physical laws as a rock or the atoms that comprise it, that would seem to suggest that the brain's neurons possess a property that a rock and its atoms don't. A rock and the matter that comprises it obeys physical laws by default, without having any choice or interaction. A brain as seen in a dog, cat or human, however, reacts to a complex series of processes beyond physical laws alone. A brain recognizes patterns and changes its own structure in order to achieve certain actions. Now, I don't want to say that the brain of a human, dog or cat has intent or will as we think of it, but then again if it has no agency, it could not react and evolve in these complex manners. Neurons would fire, chemicals would balance and imbalance according to an order of causal, physical events - but then those events would determine the animal's behavior, not its brain. Taking this into account, I am arguing that there is a fundamental difference between neurological activity and the patterns and experiences it produces. We humans aren't conscious until we are born, but neither is a rock conscious... ever. That would seem to suggest that consciousness is born of matter, but if that's the case, then we'd have to assume that all things with neurological complexity have a consciousness and a complex set of intent. What I am arguing is that neurological activity requires an outside intent in order to change itself and interact outside of simple physical laws. There is a correlation between the brain and conscious experience, but the brain is only an interface. Let's even forget conscious, cognitive thought for a while and look at only subconscious activity in a primate's brain. If the neurons do not have a special property that isn't emergent from matter, then there could not be the regulation of chemicals and release of substances in one's brain. You don't control many of the actions of your body which are regulated by your brain, yet those regulations don't seem to emerge from any normal physical process. Your brain is AWARE of hunger due to a lack of chemical energy or certain substances in the blood and reacts accordingly. Your brain seems to be AWARE of certain social stipulations and situations even when your conscious thought isn't. Our brains regularly interact with our bodies and change themselves based on current situations regardless of unpredictable, complex environmental changes. The sort of patterns and behaviors described above don't come without intent or will of some kind. Perhaps the brain itself doesn't have a will, but there is no reason I can think of that would suggest there isn't a metaphysical "mind" that is somehow connected to neurological activity.

Just gonna post some philosophical contemplative ramblings here and will see how this goes.

I like it

Why is understanding the top value for you ? Can you break it down to more fundamental building blocks? Like what exactly is the understanding that you are seeking? Is it a mean to an end or a goal into itself?

Nice description. I agree. Love to me comes in two kinds as I mentioned in my question to you. Romantic love and metaphysical love. The latter is indeed more important and more potent than the first. Since love is one of the highest vibrational frequencies.. it makes sense that you can raise your vibration with the power of love. It doesn't matter what you're loving, only that you're feeling those awesome high-vibes because when you harness the power of love you can change your life. Love is really the law of attraction in action! You want to think only of what you love, see what you love, hear what you love, do what you love and always FEEL what you love. Feeling love for something is what sets the manifestation in motion - it's the thought and feeling together that make it happen Love is a powerful high-vibe invisible force. Everything you want to be, do or have comes from LOVE. When you harness the power of LOVE you can change your life. Sometimes you float along in life, wanting love, connection, the deepest heart connection. But Love sometimes surprises you, it doesn’t just show up how you think it will. And it is always better than you imagine it will be. You can’t force it, will it to be, or make it happen. It’s a beautiful mystery.

@gettoefl you like talking in a poetic mysterious ambiguous way, don't you ?

What is love for you? Do you mean as finding a romantic partner who you fall in love with? Or developing the capacity to love all of creation ..the good and the bad?

Sorry I don't understand what you mean by that. Would you elaborate?

Interesting that no one chose sex yet ?

That's a good thing that we all need actually.

OK fine. May I ask why did you chose those? Are you advanced enough to reject and transcend the material possessions like money,sex ,success, fame etc? Do you not want those thing? I'm curious to know where do yoo classify yourself in SD? Are you orange or green?

Good attitude.

You can only choose one . So love or wisdom ? one of them must outweigh the other.

Not in the list .but nice ones . What do you mean by "ability " tho? Ability in what exactly?

I think perhaps "space" is a place wherein things can exist; of itself, space has little useful meaning that I can see. Time, the fourth dimension, is similar but different. Have they always been there? For as long as there have been things made of matter, there has been space for them to exist in. For as long as they have existed, and while they continue to exist, there is time there too, I think.

Has space and time always been there? If so, will it one day come to an end? If not, where does this leave us with these two or one thing being eternal? What does it imply in all fields such as science, myth and religion? How useful can an eternal space-time be in helping us solve abstract questions as well as concrete ones?

Lol ok

No I'm not ready to do it .I have tons of attachments and aversions . I never claimed to be spiritually gifted either . To me spirituality and philosophy are two separate things .I'm more interested in contemplating reality philosophically. I don't want to die .I guess that's what you meant by returning to source. I don't have the balls to do it .

Fair point. I need to think this through .

Well ..If everything is a figment of my imagination, I miraculously created all of the Universe with its extreme complexity, somehow managed to split myself into two beings – the one that is constantly creating the story that I find myself into, and the protagonist, who is looking through my eyes. And to make matters worse, I completely forgot about this intelligent part of me, which would have been useful in my high-school math exams. Why can't i simply remember that intelligence that designed everything and be omniscient and know everything?

I watched both of those videos. I don't miss a single video of yours . And i know...Because of Gödel we know that there are true statements out there that have no proof, but unfortunately, there is no way to identify these statements. By showing that there are problems that are fundamentally not solvable, Gödel demonstrated that there are theoretical limits to what we can ever know. But in addition, there are other problems that we could solve in theory, but not in practice . This doesn't mean science will never come up with a TOE (theory of everything, ) one day and we understand everything. Are you claiming that we can NEVER understand everything ? Isn't that what your whole work is about? At least that's what science is attempting to do .

If one starts with something ‘absurd’, doesn’t that suggest that one’s conclusions will also be absurd, or at least definitely false? Actual scientific practice flies in the face of this concern. In general, in science – and especially physics – it is common practice to adjust one’s hypotheses so as to make the reasoning easier. These ‘adjustments’ usually involve moving from an assumption that has a chance of being true, to an assumption one knows, or believes, to be false.

science doesn't really contradict itself. It builds new theories on top of previous ones. Einstein's relativity didn't contradict Newtonian mechanics. a big part of science is judging when to be sceptical about scientific claims, and when to trust in those claims and take actions accordingly. Often this comes down to the task of weighing up evidence. But we might think that when the science in question is internally inconsistent, or self-contradictory, we have an easy decision. In such circumstances the science contravenes one of our most basic conditions on useful, or trustworthy, information.

If it’s true that my mind is the only thing that exists, it must be the case that the Universe which I’m actually observing was created by me – it was my invention. All history and scientific theories that I learned, from Einstein’s Relativity to the Hawking Radiation, all the music that I’ve heard, from Mozart to – unfortunately – Justin Bieber, all the movies that I watched, were produced by me. Basically, I should be God. But, am I?