STEM is incomplete

[ateista]

In regards to morality, I don’t think I can say much more to you. If you maintain that in some cases things like slavery or killing innocent people is acceptable and moral, there’s not much I can say to that.

Don’t twist my words. I said that such behavior is acceptable to them. I also said that it is unacceptable to us.

One thing’s for sure- I am really glad you do not know my name or where I live.

My dear friend… relax. I am just an old guy, who is very peaceful and whose behavior is pretty decent. As a matter of fact I was “accused” of being a good Christian, because to outsiders my behavior is exactly what you would expect from a good Christian.

We took in a homeless couple into out home for more than a year, we paid for their wedding, helped them to deliver their child, and paid for their trip back to their homeland.

You would be perfectly safe even if I knew your name and address. The only thing you could receive from us is a hug and good wishes.

How sad it is that you feel afraid of me, just because I disagree with you in some basic definitions. That shows me how paranoid religion can make some people. Truly sad.

 

[ateista]

Machines have a purpose (in reference to man), even though they have no desires.

Whether or not things have a purpose is irrelevant to this discussion. The point is that the question of purpose is a real question. I am asking whether atheists can give a reason for dismissing the question (not the answer) that does not involve axiomic assumptions of God’s non-existence or non-relevance.

As long as you refer to purposeful beings (as you said: in reference to humans) these are perfectly legitimate questions.

 

[tobias]

I think they go hand-in-hand. You agreed that my explanation is plausible for the assumption of souls. It is also plausible for the assumption of afterlife.

Plausible- perhaps, probable- unlikely. as I said, precisely because of the symmetry all over the world. Besides, the dream notion does not explain the immaterial concept of soul, it would only lend to a notion of physical translocation.

You stated - correctly - that primitive people envisioned all sorts of gods, who needed to be appeased. The Neanderthal paintings are supposed to be ancient religious rituals.

My point was that they envisioned all sorts of physical attributes to the immaterial. Wherever man was, he had conceptualization of otherwordly entitie/s. The multiplicity of gods speaks to the varied attempts to naturalize (in the mind) the supernatural. I know you hold it was an attempt to explain natural phenomina, but that would mean that the 1st thing primitive man did with reason was to create the concept of immaterial, which is quite remarkable for their small craniums.

The god-of-the-gaps is the oldest assumption - whatever we cannot explain (and those ancient people could explain hardly anything) was attributed to one god or another.

As I intimated, I think a backward assumption (and only an assumption).If in fact a rational being must start with attribution of the unknown to the immaterial, I would say this proves that the immaterial is inherintly known by intellect. In other words, as soon as cognition is possible the immaterial is grasped. Of course it is the conventional wisdom that any emergent intellect will attribute the unknown to a ‘god’ of some sort, whch only supports my notion that intelect will inherently grasp tjhe immaterial. We can’t both be right, we can both be wrong, but there is nothing that gives either side proof.

Only in a very wide sense. We can imagine fire-breathing dragons, though we know that life and fire are pretty much mutually exculsive. We can imagine all sorts of impossible beings, like a married bachelor, or a 4-sided triangle. We cannot visualize these, of course, but to be able to visualize something is not necessary. We can imagine n-dimensional space and use this as a mathematical tool (a very useful at that) but we cannot visualize it.

It seems you miss my premise, all of your examples are mental manipulations of percievable facts. If you are able, please describe what attributes of STEM are being mentally manipulated to conceptualize the immaterial. And it’s not accurate to say you can imagine impossibilities. As soon as you try to imagine a 4 sided triangle your mind is envisioning a quadrangle, in that sense the imagination can merely redefine. But to say a fire breathing dragon is impossible is wrong; we know there are lizards, we know animals can radiate energy, such as electric catfish or jellyfish, thus possibility.

Not really. The brain and the mind are not the same. The mind is the activity of the brain, just like the activity of the hands is pointing, or hitting or caressing or manipluating something, or many other activities. These activities cannot be mapped to the muscles and the tendons - even though they are the underlying physical infrastructure which makes these activities possible.

This seems, to me, to be irrational. The mind is able to act contrary to the brain. The brain may see a candy bar and desire it while the mind may override the brain and act contrary to bodily wants. The mind is able abstain from food for long periods counter to the brain. So activity of the brain is a weak explanation of mind. Bodily systemic functioning is certainly activity of the brain, so when the mind supercedes the brain on bodily function isn’t that the mind overriding the activity of the brain?

 

[ateista]

Plausible- perhaps, probable- unlikely. as I said, precisely because of the symmetry all over the world. Besides, the dream notion does not explain the immaterial concept of soul, it would only lend to a notion of physical translocation.

My point was that they envisioned all sorts of physical attributes to the immaterial. Wherever man was, he had conceptualization of otherwordly entitie/s. The multiplicity of gods speaks to the varied attempts to naturalize (in the mind) the supernatural. I know you hold it was an attempt to explain natural phenomina, but that would mean that the 1st thing primitive man did with reason was to create the concept of immaterial, which is quite remarkable for their small craniums.

That is not a big deal. The emergence of the concept of “immaterial” is easy to comprehend. What was “immaterial” to those humans? Anything that cannot be “grabbed”.

Vapor over a lake, smoke of a fire, fog in the air… none of these could be grabbed, they were “immaterial”. Also when drinking from a quiet lake, they could see their reflection (maybe did not realize at first that it was “themselves” they saw) and that “other” guy could not be grabbed either. As soon as they tried to grab it, it just went away.

Primitive people had no idea about the solid, liquid or gaseous states of matter. The gas-like substances were all immaterial to them. So the concept of immaterial is quite easy to explain on fully materialistic grounds.

As I intimated, I think a backward assumption (and only an assumption).If in fact a rational being must start with attribution of the unknown to the immaterial, I would say this proves that the immaterial is inherintly known by intellect.

Not according to my analysis.

This seems, to me, to be irrational. The mind is able to act contrary to the brain. The brain may see a candy bar and desire it while the mind may override the brain and act contrary to bodily wants. The mind is able abstain from food for long periods counter to the brain. So activity of the brain is a weak explanation of mind. Bodily systemic functioning is certainly activity of the brain, so when the mind supercedes the brain on bodily function isn’t that the mind overriding the activity of the brain?

No way. The mind is the electro-chemical activity of the brain. The brain is the infrastructure. Without its activity it does not “do” anything.

The mind does not superceed anything. You may say that the body feels hunger, and the mind decides that some other activity is more important - so the eating must wait - that is fine.

The structure of the brain is physically changing when we learn new ideas. New neural connections are formed, and retained (memory). None of these are “perfect” in any sense, but they correspond to the “immaterial” process of interaction with the physical reality. When there is a physical damage to the brain, its activity (the mind) changes perceptibly. A small cut of lobotomy and the personality is gone.

 

[Sarpedon]

You assign to me a somewhat “sinister” status. Don’t forget, I used to be a believer, who stopped believing because I found the concept of a God - much less a benevolent God - unsupported. I did not “choose” empiricism out of “spite”. As a matter of fact, I fought this urge. I tried to use a different standard and tried to find a ground to reject “sordid materialism”. I failed.

I’m not trying to judge your motives. It just seems to me that you reject God because He fails scientific empiricism, and I want to know why that is a problem for you.

I don’t know of any other valid method.

Suppose you would ask me one million of “yes-no” questions. Unbeknownst to you, I would flip a coin every time, and when the coin shows heads, I would answer “yes”, and when the coin shows “tails”, I would answer “no”. The result would be approximately 500 correct answers and 500 incorrect ones. Would you agree that flipping coins is a valid epistemological method to glean information? I would hope not.

The side a coin lands on seems to be entirely random, and thus it does not seem to have any correlation to any method of knowledge. This is why I do not believe that it will give us reliable answers. I am sure you agree with me.

Can you provide a parallel argument against pure abstract philosophy?

I am sure you will say there is no evidence it corresponds to a reliable method of knowledge, and I partially agree with you.

In of itself, there is no reason to assume we can know truth through philosophy. Therefore, my acceptance of philosophy is partially based on basic faith.

I am sure you are in agreement so far.

Now we come to the crucial difference. I assume you would say that we can fall back on empiricism, because we “know it works”.
I do not agree that we can simply know that it works. There is no reason to assume that our mind senses reality the way it really is, just as there is no reason to assume that it can philosophize in accordance with reality.

This is the simple difference. The way I see it, there are several different means of gaining knowledge and we cannot know directly which ones “work” and which ones do not. Therefore, belief in any mental abilitity only makes sense in the context of faith in it either being created a specific way or it simply being the way that it is. I find belief in it being created a certain way more acceptable than simply believing “it is so”.

You see empiricism as the only self-authenticating method, and therefore solely rely on it. I do not agree that it is self-authenticating.

Empiricism gives us an **overwhelming evidence **of being correct. What is the alternative? “Faith”? The uncritical acceptance of a self-proclaimed “authority”? We all agree that humans are fallible. Why should I accept the opinion of anyone, who cannot demonstrate that his opinion is borne out by facts?

When have any theolgians asked you to accept their opinion without criticism? We provide arguments that can be evaluated on their own merits, as you have been doing.

 

[Sarpedon]

My dear friend… relax. I am just an old guy, who is very peaceful and whose behavior is pretty decent. As a matter of fact I was “accused” of being a good Christian, because to outsiders my behavior is exactly what you would expect from a good Christian.

We took in a homeless couple into out home for more than a year, we paid for their wedding, helped them to deliver their child, and paid for their trip back to their homeland.

You would be perfectly safe even if I knew your name and address. The only thing you could receive from us is a hug and good wishes.

How sad it is that you feel afraid of me, just because I disagree with you in some basic definitions. That shows me how paranoid religion can make some people. Truly sad.

I am not really afraid of you. It was a rhetorical statement.

I realize that you are a peaceful man and that you are decent. In fact, most atheists I have come in contact with fit this description. The real concern is not the atheists themselves. The real concern is the effect of their ideas on others.

You choose to live a decent life. You admit that you are not morally “obligated” to do so. What happens if someone makes a different decision than you, based on your position?

After all, the idea you have advanced, “morality is determined purely by prevailing public opinion”, undermines the fabric of society. If your idea is right, then anything and everything can become justifiable with enough popular support. Even if you live a good life, what about those who come after you and listen to you?

 

[ateista]

I’m not trying to judge your motives. It just seems to me that you reject God because He fails scientific empiricism, and I want to know why that is a problem for you.

I was not serious. I put the smiley up to indicate it. Now, your assessment for my skepticism is a bit off the mark. Let me explain.

I can imagine that there is a very high being (or could be many of them), who played an instrumental role in the “creation” of our physical universe. This being (let’s use the singular) cannot be detected in any fashion. Such an idea I would consider pure speculation, but of course speculation is fine and dandy - as long as we both agree that it is just an exercise of the mind. I can even imagine that such a being interacts with our existence, in some fashion, which is unidentifyable to us. Obviously we cannot have any idea about the intents of the being.

So why should we care? If this being cannot be detected, cannot be fathomed then his existence is irrelevant.

Now, believers assert a few other things - and that is where the proverbial substance hits the fan.

One is that this being actually “revealed” his existence to some people a long time ago. That is what I do not believe. There can be no meaningful communication between such vastly different entites. Sure, this being could issue “commands” to “regulate” our behavior.

But why would this being resort to such crude methods? Much better to create us with certain design parameters, so we can “behave” as intended. That does not take away our freedom completely, it just limits it to confine it to the desired range of activities. That is what an intelligent creator does. Moreover, our freedom is already limited here and now. We can imagine all sorts of actions, but we are physically unable to cary them out. So why not put in a few more safeguards?

The idea that we “matter” to this creator is also preposterous. We cannot give him anything, since we cannot access his plane of existence. Therefore we can only be a source of “amusement”, or maybe a scientific experiment. Maybe we cannot fathom the intents at all.

But to create “lower beings” and then tell them that they are lower, that they are confined to their level of existence is horribly cruel. It does not alleviate this fact that “some” are promised to get to a higher level of existence. And the rest of us, who do not measure up will be tortured eternally? That is such a horrible concept that I reject it. Whatever this being is, cannot be cruel. Petty cruelty is not compatible with the level of intelligence this being must have.

I do not reject the concept of God, because I find the concept of a completely unknowable creator impossible to verify empirically. I accept that it is possible, but totally irrelevant. I reject the concept of the Christian God, because the alleged attributes are part nonsensical, part self-contradictory and part cannot be reconciled with the state of affairs as we experience them.

I will answer the rest of your post separately. I know that this little “essay” does not fit into the framework of this thread, so please disregard it if you want to. Maybe we could explore it in another thread. But I wanted to clarify that I do not entertain the concept of God for different reasons than just the lack of empirical verification.

 

[ateista]

The side a coin lands on seems to be entirely random, and thus it does not seem to have any correlation to any method of knowledge. This is why I do not believe that it will give us reliable answers. I am sure you agree with me.

Well, of course I agree. But you don’t know that I employed “this” method in our little thought experiment. All you know that I employed “some” method and it was 50% reliable. Is that a good reason to accept this “unknown” method?

Can you provide a parallel argument against pure abstract philosophy?

I am sure you will say there is no evidence it corresponds to a reliable method of knowledge, and I partially agree with you.

In of itself, there is no reason to assume we can know truth through philosophy. Therefore, my acceptance of philosophy is partially based on basic faith.

I am sure you are in agreement so far.

The problem is that the basic principles can differ. Philosophy is a deductive endeavor, and the results will hinge upon the starting postulates.

Now, if we stay in our “ivory tower” and do not consider the real world, than all we did was having a nice conversation. As soon as we apply the result to the physical world, we must engage in empiricism to verify our results.

Now we come to the crucial difference. I assume you would say that we can fall back on empiricism, because we “know it works”.
I do not agree that we can simply know that it works. There is no reason to assume that our mind senses reality the way it really is, just as there is no reason to assume that it can philosophize in accordance with reality.

Now, this is one of the basic postulates. We must assume that our senses are reliable, because there is nothing else. No, it cannot be proven deductively that the senses work.

But what is the opposite? To doubt our senses? That can only go so far. If you doubt that your eyes see a fire, and place your hand into it, your own reflexes will prove to you that your perception was correct. You cannot volitionally override most of your bodily functions, they are outside your volitional control. If a small bug approaches your eye, you will instinctively blink, there is no other possibility.

And if you go too far in doubting your senses, then you will die. That is the final point. It would make no sense to say that “maybe” you just imagined death, and you are “really” fine and well. The stink of the decomposing corpse is the final proof.

This is the simple difference. The way I see it, there are several different means of gaining knowledge and we cannot know directly which ones “work” and which ones do not.

As I said before, there is only one proof of the pudding - that it is edible. No matter how hard one tries to assert that a piece of yellow bebble gives sustenance if placed under the left armpit, eventually the body will rebel and prove - without any doubt - that the yellow pebble is not nutritious.

Therefore, belief in any mental abilitity only makes sense in the context of faith in it either being created a specific way or it simply being the way that it is. I find belief in it being created a certain way more acceptable than simply believing “it is so”.

I understand, but it is just a subjective opinion.

You see empiricism as the only self-authenticating method, and therefore solely rely on it. I do not agree that it is self-authenticating.

What can you bring up as an argument?

When have any theolgians asked you to accept their opinion without criticism? We provide arguments that can be evaluated on their own merits, as you have been doing.

It depends. Lack of belief is frequently considered “sinful” with the well-known consequences. This is the only “argument”.

 

[tobias]

That is not a big deal. The emergence of the concept of “immaterial” is easy to comprehend. What was “immaterial” to those humans? Anything that cannot be “grabbed”.

To what historical document or archaeological evidence would lend to support your idea that immaterial was that which could not be ‘grabbed’?

Vapor over a lake, smoke of a fire, fog in the air… none of these could be grabbed, they were “immaterial”. Also when drinking from a quiet lake, they could see their reflection (maybe did not realize at first that it was “themselves” they saw) and that “other” guy could not be grabbed either. As soon as they tried to grab it, it just went away.

Your citing your own conjecture to validate itself. Do we not hold that primates have always been pack (familial) animals, they would also see the reflection of peers when at the lake, so a bogus notion. (the same applies to the dream idea)
Attribution of physical properties to ‘gods’ was mostly what could be ‘grabbed’. I think your inserting developed notion into history, the further back in the history of religious art you go there seems to be less and less conection between smoke, vapor or fog and deity. It seems to me that is the develped notion not the default.

Primitive people had no idea about the solid, liquid or gaseous states of matter. The gas-like substances were all immaterial to them. So the concept of immaterial is quite easy to explain on fully materialistic grounds.

What a grand assumptiosn, to say they had no idea about states of matter. That seems to be the equivalent of saying they lacked sense perceptivity. I don’t know why your hung up on ‘gas like substances’ as being primitive mans perception of immaterial. Your own acceptance of ‘god of gaps’ theory, holds that primitive man attributed to natural phenomina an ‘other worldly’ (immaterial) quality. Whether that phenomina was in the form of solid, liquid or gas, it did not matter. I think your reaching.

Not according to my analysis.

Exactly. I hold your analysis to be flawed, conventional, but flawed.

No way. The mind is the electro-chemical activity of the brain. The brain is the infrastructure. Without its activity it does not “do” anything.

The mind does not superceed anything. You may say that the body feels hunger, and the mind decides that some other activity is more important - so the eating must wait - that is fine.

The structure of the brain is physically changing when we learn new ideas. New neural connections are formed, and retained (memory). None of these are “perfect” in any sense, but they correspond to the “immaterial” process of interaction with the physical reality. When there is a physical damage to the brain, its activity (the mind) changes perceptibly. A small cut of lobotomy and the personality is gone.

WHOAH, wait a minute, hold on now.
What in God’s green earth makes you think that you know what happens to the mind, when damage to the brain impaires personality (bodily reaction to the world), memory (link between sense perception and stored sense perceptions), physical movement, or any other motor activity. Your examples are motor activities so, as I said, known activity of the brain, bodily interaction with the world. Your using your own assertion that mind is activity of the brain to prove it is so.
I think you mean well, but so far your stated position about mind and its link to brain and perception have been rather lame and formulaic. I’m sorry but I hope this is not the kind of rationale that lead you to turn from God.

And if my logic thus far is flawed, by all means, show me where, I love honest correction.

 

[ateista]

I am not really afraid of you. It was a rhetorical statement.

I am glad, though it sure seemed pretty serious.

I realize that you are a peaceful man and that you are decent. In fact, most atheists I have come in contact with fit this description. The real concern is not the atheists themselves. The real concern is the effect of their ideas on others.

Why not give credence to others?

You choose to live a decent life. You admit that you are not morally “obligated” to do so.

No, but I am predisposed to behave in a certain manner. As a matter of fact, many times it happened that a cashier made an error in my favor, and wanted to give me more money than she was supposed to. I actually “wanted” to walk away with the surplus, but I am psychologically unable to do so. The urge to be honest always overrides the desire to “cheat”. I do not claim that it is my own doing. My parents gave me the proper upbringing - imprinting on my mind a set of standards - or “brainwashed” me, if you prefer… And I am not unique. I firmly believe that most people are like this and only a very small minority is different.

What happens if someone makes a different decision than you, based on your position?

Yes, it is a risk.

After all, the idea you have advanced, “morality is determined purely by prevailing public opinion”, undermines the fabric of society.

No, it just may undermine it.

If your idea is right, then anything and everything can become justifiable with enough popular support. Even if you live a good life, what about those who come after you and listen to you?

Now, I am the one who says: “Have faith that the majority of the people are basically decent folks”. And they can hold the rest at bay.

 

[ateista]

To what historical document or archaeological evidence would lend to support your idea that immaterial was that which could not be ‘grabbed’?

My friend, a historical document from about a 100000 years ago? I am talking about the time of the cavemen.

You asked what is the materialistic explanation for the concept of “immaterial souls” and “gods”.

I gave you my opinion, which is nothing more than a hypothesis. Moreover it is not even a strictly scientific hypothesis, since it cannot ve verified - due to the lack of a time machine. You even said that it is plausible, though you did not find it probable. Fine.

You seem to be insinuating that there are immaterial ontological objects, and the idea of “souls” and such emerged from the intuitive acceptance of such entities. That is your theory as I understand it - though I may be mistaken. I disagree.

I find the concept of a “soul” entirely without merit. I don’t accept that it is a deficiency of STEM that is does not deal with purely imaginary objects. Naturally, you will disagree.

I propose to agree to disagree.

 

[Le_Chiot_Noir]

Out of curioisity, how would STEM define love?

 

[ateista]

Out of curioisity, how would STEM define love?

Love is a state of mind.

 

[tobias]

My friend, a historical document from about a 100000 years ago? I am talking about the time of the cavemen.

That was why I also mentioned archaeological evidence as well, to distinguish between recorded history and earlier.

You asked what is the materialistic explanation for the concept of “immaterial souls” and “gods”.

I gave you my opinion, which is nothing more than a hypothesis. Moreover it is not even a strictly scientific hypothesis, since it cannot ve verified - due to the lack of a time machine. You even said that it is plausible, though you did not find it probable. Fine.

Yes I understood you were presenting opinion, however, as often happens, it’s easily mispercieved if not specified as such. And I’ve heard the arguments before, being less than impressed, mostly because it runs contrary to the evolutionary ‘pill’ wer’e expected to swallow.

You seem to be insinuating that there are immaterial ontological objects, and the idea of “souls” and such emerged from the intuitive acceptance of such entities. That is your theory as I understand it - though I may be mistaken. I disagree.

Correct. I could easily be disuaded from this line of reasoning, if in fact it could be demonstrated where man conceptualized other things in which the components were not derived from sense percieved data.

I find the concept of a “soul” entirely without merit. I don’t accept that it is a deficiency of STEM that is does not deal with purely imaginary objects. Naturally, you will disagree.

I propose to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. But I still contend that you are able to conceptualize soul, otherwise you’d be asking what we mean by soul.

 

[ateista]

WHOAH, wait a minute, hold on now.
What in God’s green earth makes you think that you know what happens to the mind, when damage to the brain impaires personality (bodily reaction to the world), memory (link between sense perception and stored sense perceptions), physical movement, or any other motor activity. Your examples are motor activities so, as I said, known activity of the brain, bodily interaction with the world. Your using your own assertion that mind is activity of the brain to prove it is so.

The known activity of the brain is the mind. That is the definition of the mind. Of course we use the body language as an indicator. Why is that so surprising?

When a computer performs a program, you cannot directly observe the triggers of the electronic instruments within the computer, you use the peripherals to make assumptions as to the working of the program. The hardware is the set of electronic “gadgets”, the software is what happens, when those parts “operate” in a certain manner.

Conversely, the brain is the hardware, and mind is the activity of it, precisely as with a computer. After all the brain is a finite amount of neurons, which is nothing else but a huge, extremely complex, but still finite, parallel processing computer.

 

[ateista]

Correct. I could easily be disuaded from this line of reasoning, if in fact it could be demonstrated where man conceptualized other things in which the components were not derived from sense percieved data.

Mathematics is an example. Language is another. Music also.

True, I had a conversation with someone, who asserted that there are “abstract objects”, (he brought up the example of the number “2”, or the letter “z”, or “Hamlet” or the “Ninth Symphony” etc…) but he could never substantiate that these concepts exist independently of the mind. He asserted that we do not “invent” something, merely “discover” it.

Sure, the concept of “2” is based upon real world observation, but that is pretty much it. The square root of minus one is not based upon anything in reality. It is just an arbitrary extrpolation. Likewise the concepts of vectors and matrices, and the arbitrary way the concepts of “addition”, “subtraction”, “multiplication”, etc. are defined for these entities. Division cannot even be defined for these imaginary entites.

What would it mean that Shakespeare “discovered” Hamlet? Or Beethoven “discovered” the Ninth Sympony? Sheer nonsense.

How would the letter “z” exist independently from our tongue, teeth and lips? The sound “th” does not even exist in all languages.

It is true that the existence of abstraction cannot really be confined spatially (unlike physical objects) but they certainly can be confined in the temporal sense. Before Beethoven “came up” with the Ninth, there was no Ninth. If the Sun would go nova and wipe out the Earth, the Ninth would cease to exist in any meaningful fashion.

 

[davidv]

The known activity of the brain is the mind. That is the definition of the mind. Of course we use the body language as an indicator. Why is that so surprising?
{snip}

I beg to differ. Mind is not defined as the activity of the brain. I did not find once instance of “brain” being connected to any of the 34 definitions of “mind” found here.

“Mind” is metaphysical not physical.

 

[tobias]

The known activity of the brain is the mind. That is the definition of the mind. Of course we use the body language as an indicator. Why is that so surprising?

Then You are forced to say there is no cognative difference between man and a frog, they just differ in physical attribute and man has a larger processor? I think you have to hold a phd to believe such rubbish.

When a computer performs a program, you cannot directly observe the triggers of the electronic instruments within the computer, you use the peripherals to make assumptions as to the working of the program. The hardware is the set of electronic “gadgets”, the software is what happens, when those parts “operate” in a certain manner.

Conversely, the brain is the hardware, and mind is the activity of it, precisely as with a computer. After all the brain is a finite amount of neurons, which is nothing else but a huge, extremely complex, but still finite, parallel processing computer.

A computer and the brain depend upon prompts to act or change movement, the mind (by reason and rationale) does not

 

[ateista]

I beg to differ. Mind is not defined as the activity of the brain. I did not find once instance of “brain” being connected to any of the 34 definitions of “mind” found here.

“Mind” is metaphysical not physical.

Walking is metaphysical, not physical. The mind is the activity of the brain. Just like walking is the activity of the legs. Walking is not an ontological object.

 

[ateista]

Then You are forced to say there is no cognative difference between man and a frog, they just differ in physical attribute and man has a larger processor? I think you have to hold a phd to believe such rubbish.

There certainly is a huge difference. It is not “rubbish” that quantiative changes bring along qualitiative differences. Keep on piling uranium atoms and see if you can do it beyond a certain size. (Hint, the explosion will be quite spectacular.)

Not just the size of the processor is different. Its organization is vastly different. Elephants have a much larger brain than humans, yet their cognitive functions are much smaller.

A computer and the brain depend upon prompts to act or change movement, the mind (by reason and rationale) does not

Well, I suggest you try an old experiment. Have your eyes covered and be immersed in salty water which is neither too warm, nor too cold. Hovering under the surface, breathing comforatbly through a mask, see how long you can endure the lack of outside signals before you go bonkers. People can and do go crazy when they are deprived of outside stimuli.

Now, sice you all are so adamant that the “mind” is not the activity of the brain, what do you think it is? Do you think that the brain is just the organ to cool off the blood, as the Greeks did in the time of Arisototele? You disregard the whole medical science, brain surgery, psychology and the rest. What is your “non-rubbish” proposition?