The Brain does not generate the mind; scientific proof

This is the case in point. You really love the word arbitrarily and try to insert it in every sentence.

Leaving that to one side the above sentence fragment means nothing.

Who are the "we" who have decided to separate the brain from everything else?

It's nonsense, clearly the brain is a functioning organ and its removal would result in death.

The only separation that occurs is in the study of medicine, but that's no different from any other organ.

Heart specialists specialise, they don't "arbitrarily" separate the heart from the rest of the body.

You're not approaching this scientifically, you're approaching it from a religious angle in exactly the same way the anti evolution idiots.

You have already come to a conclusion and are trying to find evidence to support that conclusion.

The scientific approach would be to ditch any assumption and look at what is there on its own merits.

You have an idea, your idea is that the soul exists outside of the body and came from elsewhere, probably the divine.

You've not progressed beyond that point.

You've dressed it up in flowery language, inserting as many polysyllabic words like arbitrarily as you can, not with the intention of informing or clarifying your point, but to obscure and muddy the waters.

When this is pointed out you claim what you said cannot be refuted, because it's just an idea, there's nothing to refute, in the same way you cannot refute Hightor's article.

Your sentences are so deliberately convoluted they verge on word salad.

At least you are reasonably articulate, unlike Jasper whose language skills have not developed since primary school.

However, you still have nothing, just a load of verbose acrobatics.

Nobody is fooled, (except perhaps Jasper,) but he and reason went their own separate ways many years ago.

You wrote:"Who are the "we" who have decided to separate the brain from everything else?
It's nonsense, clearly the brain is a functioning organ and its removal would result in death."

Obviously, "we" refers to the people who have conceived the idea of the brain. According to the laws of physics, what we call "brain" is only a bunch of quantum particles interacting individually with other quantum particles.
The brain is not isolated from the rest of the universe and therefore it is arbitrary to define what is brain and what is not brain; for example, should the molecules in the blood inside the brain be considered part of the brain or not? Should the photons inside the brain be considered part of the brain or not? The answer is arbitrary.
The term "organ" refers to a conceptual model and is a cognitive construct, that may exist only in a conscious mind. According to the laws of physics, all biological processes, including brain processes, consist of many parallel sequences of elementary physical processes. The conceot of organ is used as a simplied model to describe approximately from a macroscopic point of view the underlying microsocopic physical processes.

Let me give an example: the heart and its function of pumping blood. Actually, the function of pumping blood is just an abstract concept through which we approximately describe what is really happening, that is billions of linked chemical reactions and moving molecules. In other words, the function of the heart is only a subjective description of the organ from a macroscopic point of view, which neglect many microscopic details. Besides, the concept of pumping is directly connected to the concepts of force and movement, which are fundamental physical properties. Therefore, the function of the heart is not a new real property, but only a conceptual model through which we approximately describe reality; this means that the function of the heart is just an idea. If we were smarter and could solve the equations of quantum physics for a macroscopic system, we could know all the processes that take place in physical reality without the need to consider simplified models. It is only because of the limitations of our intelligence that we have devised simplified conceptual models to describe natural phenomena. All the classifications used by biologists respond to the need to overcome the limits of our intelligence. Through biology, we describe natural phenomena in order to make them appear consistent with our way of reasoning; biological models are in fact very intuitive, unlike quantum physics.

Ahhh...Jasper has shown up.

I've had him on IGNORE for quite a while. Take him off once in a while, but end up putting him back on almost immediately. You apparently have more patience and tolerance than I.

I am treating this as a fun thread. I occasionally enjoy watching people like the OP doing their thing.

All well with you, Izzy?

My science and philosophy are perfectly sound.LOL.

As you can only HOPE that +=- and -=+ because you certainly can't definitively prove it, you have absolutely no option but to also HOPE that -=- and +=+ as well.

Nature couldn't care less what you hope in but it does cover all options with the formula +/-=+/- which philosophically is a perfect UNITED formula.

This formula being the only way that you can balance the electromagnetic forces in nature as well which do not cancel out.

As you can only HOPE that the +=- and -=+ formulas are correct there is no assurance in it.

The laugh if not on me I can assure you.

Everything has improved of late.

I've had problems with the bank that have finally sorted themselves out.

You've not missed anything, Jasper's just repeating the same pointless drivel he always does.

"We refers to the people who..."

Nothing specific, no names just vague nonsense.

That's all you have, a vague idea.

And the "we" is another abstract concept of yours, some faceless scientists you attribute your arguments to.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with any of the people on this forum.

It's up there with Jasper's claims about science doing/thinking this that or the other.

Here's an idea, instead of using all that fancy highfalutin language of yours, you familiarse yourself with what "we" means.

It's first person plural, not third person plural.

I provide sound philosophical advise.

The mind needs symmetry. It operates symmetrically. Therefore philosophy; psychology and the science which backs it up must be symmetrical. The issue with the +=- and -=+ formulas is that they are hopeful philosophy logics. If you adopt these logics then in order to keep the symmetry you have to adopt the -=- and +=+ hopeful philosophy logics as well.

The only way to keep a symmetrical philosophy balance with all these 4 off hopeful logics is if you combine them all into a UNITED formula rather than having 4 off separate formulas, thus you end up with the formula +/-=+/-

You then have to interpret what this philosophical formula actually means in practice at the scientific and psychological levels.

The formula works for balancing electromagnetic force interactions between 2 objects. It also works at the psychological level for balancing consciousness.

It just does....LOL....

You talk nonsense.

And you're not smart enough to realise this.

You can't name one person who doesn't think you're an idiot.

That's all you've done with all your posts, convince everyone you're an idiot.

Just because individuals don't understand doesn't make me an idiot . Where is the logic in that? It just means that individuals don't understand.

My post are always balanced. Not everyone's philosophy is +=- and -=+

I don't adopt this philosophy because it can't be proved for one and secondly this logic provides no practical output to confirm its legitimacy whatsoever.

The +/-=+/- formula does have legitimacy. As I say, the laugh is not on me.

I wish I had a dollar for every time you post that gawdawful +/- bs. I’d be able to pay off the US national debt. How did that lobotomy operation turnout.

Wait, wait..don’t tell me…it has its pluses and minuses, right?!

HaHa....Ragman...It's not bs though if you balance all 4 off possibility logics philosophically into one united formula. Nature agrees with it. Don't blame me I didn't come up with it. I have just discovered it.

https://youtu.be/XCjDLaQxyq8
A Question of Balance

I believe we do get answers Ragman.

Don't be absurd.

The reason people think you're an idiot is: because you cannot answer a simple question, you are unable to provide any formula or scientific reasoning or evidence to back up your notions, you even lack the wherewithal to articulate said notions.

All you have is vague nonsense, plus, minus, holes in the universe and magnetism.

It's the sort of thing a five year old could come up with.

That's what makes you an idiot.