Mental masturbation!

[Someone here]

 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.

[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.