*new* mind is more than brain (???)

From my vantage point genetics is just a lot of guess work and a place holder for what scientists don't understand.

For example: Where do humans come from? Genetics.

Why do we do this? Genetics. Why do we do that? Genetics? Where do genetics come from? Genetics? Genetics is all powerful, omnipresent, and omniscient.

Yep. You have your lovely faith and belief in genetics - whatever the heck that is. Some silly little pieces of mass that magically do everything you can every imagine, forever and ever

I find your religion rather amusing. Such strong beliefs. Stronger than most religious people that I know. Like a say, I would rather have a God than the barren genetics world that you live in. Empty beliefs and faith in a strand of material. Almost like idolatry. And it does nothing. It doesn't even look good.

Yes, I can tell. I woud call it zealotry myself.

...

I tell you. When I exchange messages with you it feels exactly like talking to a religious zealot. Feels no different at all.

Rich

I sense that there is a reluctance to open your mind to what we are suggesting here. We are not trying to suggest that our more physical approach is more valid than your more abrtract approach. I think there is merit in a bastardisation of of the two thoughts.

I was going to say something about how I feel like I'm talking to the greeting cards display at CVS but forget it

So, anyway, you appear to be confused about what radical behaviorism means

It's not some kind of cult religion, it's behaviorism with a few provisions, including the provision that mental behavior exists in the form of "private states" (although these are becoming less private), that's all

I don't expect to convince anyone who disagrees with me in this particular argument

However, close-minded opponents serve as ... rhetorical quintains. When I meet someone who is actually willing to consider the facts, I'll be ready.

I sense that there is a reluctance to open your mind to what we are suggesting here. We are not trying to suggest that our more physical approach is more valid than your more abrtract approach. I think there is merit in a bastardisation of of the two thoughts.

I'm all for bastardisation. Did I just say that? Sorry, I mean for looking deeper into subjects. But if someone is going to tell me its genetics, well to me it is like saying its magic, or God did it. No difference. It feels like I am trying to talk to religious zealots, and I think we both agree that that kind of discussion really goes no where. God. Genetics. There is always one catch-all phrase.

Actually, I think matter is just a condensed version of energy which in turn is a condensed version of consciousness. So for me it is all the same. Just a continuum. However, at the center, I see consciousness. Sort of like vapor condensing into water condensing into ice.

Rich

If you are talking about Skinner. Yep, I studied his ideas in school. I even thought they were pretty cool until I figgered out that they have nothing to do with people in real life.

But it is always fun trying to make robots out of humans, rather than making them out of metal as they normally would be made.

Lots of this stuff sounds really good on paper, it is only when you actually observe the results that the whole thing falls apart.

Kind of like trying to fly with man-made bird-wings. Sounds and looks great until you fall straight down.

BTW, did I just describe genetics again?

I forgot to quote the other guy. I was actully agreeing with you.

God. Genetics. There is always one catch-all phrase.

Actually, I think matter is just a condensed version of energy which in turn is a condensed version of consciousness. So for me it is all the same. Just a continuum. However, at the center, I see consciousness. Sort of like vapor condensing into water condensing into ice.

If concsciousness is something we are aware of then surely in circumstances such as sleep or injury (concussion) the brain has turned the tap off and we no longer experience concsciousness. We even call that being unconscious.

Perhaps we are talking about the experience being greater than the sum of its parts. I'm not sure however we can explain away the physical aspect/connection that the brain creates thought and not the other way around.

Yeah for example if you damage Broca's region you will stop speaking coherently

It would appear that having the cortex for a certain function is necessary and sufficient for that function

Examination of the brains of Paul Pierre Broca's two historic patients with high resolution MRI has produced several interesting findings. First, the MRI findings suggest that other areas besides Broca's area may also have contributed to the patients' reduced productive speech. This finding is significant because it has been found that though lesions to Broca's area alone can possibly cause temporary speech disruption, they do not result in severe speech arrest. Therefore, there is a possibility that the aphasia denoted by Broca as an absence of productive speech also could have been influenced by the lesions in the other region. Another interesting finding is that the lesion, which was once considered to be critical for speech by Broca, is not precisely the same region as what is now known as Broca's area. This study provides further evidence that language and cognition are far more complicated than once thought and involve various networks of brain regions.

How can you subscribe to a metaphysical approach to consciousness and yet believe the answers are to be found in quantum physics!!

The terms conscious and unconscious were coined by Freud and Jung to differentiate different states of the mind. However Jung went further and suggested that there was a collective unconscious shared by all human beings.

I would say that a full definition of consciousness is as fluid as that of the descriptive meaning of quantum physics.

I would like to hear what others think is happening at the lowest level of matter which composes everything, including the brain. The brain cannot escape quantum physics. Newtonian physics is gone and so are the billiard ball models of matter and life.

I think you may want to re-examine the evidence.

Broca's area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem I have is that it appears that certain scientists who practice the art, are in such a hurry to prove their point that they tend to ignore and dismiss all contrary evidence.

It is all done with the mind (consciousness), even the thought experiments that led us to quantum mechanics theory and relativity. I would love it if scientists gave up their Newtonian view of the world (billiard balls) and embraced the electron cloud of uncertainty.

Too bad this is pseudoscientific

My suggestion is that you spend some time looking into confirmation bias.

It explains the errors in your thinking in lucid detail

The highest, as the lowest, form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.

Picture of Dorian Gray
Oscar Wilde

Let me return the favor