'Brain = Mind' debunked

[eveshi]

This is a ball of plasticine. It's not conscious, i. e. it doesn't experience anything.



Like every object in the universe, it is a configuration of elementary particles and fundamental forces, located in spacetime.

Now we can give it different shapes.

For example, we can shape it like an egg:



Or like a worm:



Or like a snowman:

[eveshi]

We also can extend its mass by adding an additional ball of plasticine:



And amazingly we also can give it complex forms:



Even very complex and specific forms that cannot be found anywhere else in the universe!



Do we have any reason to suppose that the achievement of any configuration makes the plasticine conscious? I don't think so.

But that's exactly what physicalism/materialism claims, i. e. that a configuration of elementary particles and fundamental forces becomes conscious when it achieves the 'right' shape, i. e. a brain-like pattern. This is analogous to the claim that plasticine becomes conscious when it achieves the 'right' configuration. Since the latter is utter nonsense, the physicalist claim that consciousness emerges when a brain-pattern is achieved is nonsense, too.

[mszlazak]

[Hjortron]

Brilliant way of presenting the argument. It needs to be this pedagogical.

[Bruce Siegel]

Originally Posted by eveshi

that's exactly what physicalism/materialism claims, i. e. that a configuration of elementary particles and fundamental forces becomes conscious when it achieves the 'right' shape, i. e. a brain-like pattern.

Nicely done, eveshi!

But then--as I look it again, that last shape looks almost conscious. Maybe if you had just tinkered with it a little more . . .?

[really]

Originally Posted by eveshi

But that's exactly what physicalism/materialism claims, i. e. that a configuration of elementary particles and fundamental forces becomes conscious when it achieves the 'right' shape, i. e. a brain-like pattern.

Perhaps this quote answers this best

Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."

Originally Posted by eveshi

This is analogous to the claim that plasticine becomes conscious when it achieves the 'right' configuration. Since the latter is utter nonsense, the physicalist claim that consciousness emerges when a brain-pattern is achieved is nonsense, too.

You started out like this and now you look something like this Somewhere over the course of development you became aware. Consider yourself a special form of plasticine

[eveshi]

Originally Posted by really

You started out like this and now you look something like this Somewhere over the course of development you became aware.

The plasticine started out like this:



and now it looks like this:



Surely it became conscious?!

Consider yourself a special form of plasticine

The objects above also are special forms of plasticine. Does that make them conscious?

[really]

Originally Posted by eveshi

The plasticine started out like this:



and now it looks like this:



Surely it became conscious?!


The objects above also are special forms of plasticine. Does that make them conscious?

You can shape the clay anyway you want, but you only end up with clay.
No it didn't did it. Why don't admit you are just blowing smoke ?

[eveshi]

Originally Posted by really

You can shape the clay anyway you want, but you only end up with clay.

Yes. Doesn't that ring a bell?

No it didn't did it.

So the plasticine doesn't become conscious, but the brain does? Why?

Why don't admit you are just blowing smoke ?

It's not blowing smoke, it's debunking the whole skeptic community's worldview.

[really]

Originally Posted by eveshi

Yes. Doesn't that ring a bell?

?

Originally Posted by eveshi

So the plasticine doesn't become conscious, but the brain does? Why?

I have no idea. And I don't pretend to know.

Originally Posted by eveshi

It's not blowing smoke, it's debunking the whole skeptic community's worldview.

Oh, you mean materialism and physicalism are wrong. Sorry, but the exposés a flop. Remember when I said there's an underlying reason and you said no. You weren't being honest with yourself.