Bluezy13:


That I question your assertion doesn't mean that I have a counter representation of it.

Bluezy13:

Here we go again...
Attributing the Mind to be a process.

LordTheus:
It is literally a result of processes in the human brain.

LordTheus:


Well, you've already gone out of your way to counter my position that the brain produces what you call the "mind" by claiming that the mind is an independent phenomenon. It would do us both good for you to explain what you mean by the mind being "independent"

Bluezy13:

Among other references, let me point out only a few;

"Mind is viewed as an emergent property of the brain, generated from and dependent upon neural activity, but nonetheless separate from it."
This is an excerpt from Sperry's view of Mind-Brain duality that you quoted.

It will also fascinate us if you could go through this :
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/difference-between-mind-and-brain-neuroscientist/

Now here is my initial hint about the Mind and the brain:
"...The Mind is an independent phenomenon of its own, functioning distinctly depending on the body it embodies. (It is however worthy of note that is should not be regarded as a definition of the Mind)."
By "body" here, I was referring to the brain.

LordTheus:


Yes, this is otherwise known as property dualism - the position that the mind is an immaterial property of the brain. To be clear however, I'm arguing from a materialist point of view. I assert that all emergent phenomena (including mind and/or consciousness) are a product of material properties and interactions.



Basically your position is that the mind is an immaterial thing distinct from the brain - at least that's what I can infer from your assertion as well as the link which you pasted. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Now the problem is, by claiming that the mind is distinct from the brain, you have hypothesized an entire plane of being, a radical compounding of all the complexities in the plane of being we can actually observe. And what additional data are you able to explain by adding all this complexity?

Not saying that your position isn't tenable, but by virtue of Occam's Razor, I'd prefer to stick with the materialistic perspective i.e the mind as a product of material processes and interaction in the physical brain because, in my opinion, it is a simpler hypothesis to explain observable phenomena.

Bluezy13:
if one should embrace solely the definition of the Mind in the material sense, then personality should not be an ambiguous a concept as it is already and human behavior should be flawlessly predictable because what is known and can be studied should have a unanimous perception...not hypothetically but with certainty.

On the other hand, the introduction of immateriality would make the concept of the Mind a controversial argument (just as it is already).

Bluezy13:
Define the Mind.

Magnolia, perhaps we could use your help here.

LordTheus:


Human behavior is only considerably unpredictable due to the fact that we lack proper understanding and judgement towards the human psyche. Countless aspects that we haven’t understood as of now seem to be "random" at first, but can also point out that certain laws in the social sciences, are more flexible in nature in comparison to that of the physical/hard sciences.

As Sherlock Holmes said, if you had all of the variables of human behavior, all of the various threads leading to a certain moment and could analyse them all, then you could predict any behavior. For a bigger example of this, read Isaac Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy, which predicts the futures of entire societies.



Perhaps it would. But allow me to ask you this: If the "mind" (which you claim is immaterial) is to have any influence over the body, it will have to cause that body to do physical things in the physical world, wouldn't it? How then can it do this if it is not, itself, physical? In what sense is it a "separate" kind of thing from the physical world if it is capable of stimulating the nerve impulses and muscle movement required for me to put the plans I make in my "mind" into action?

Bluezy13:


I supposed you should have known the answer to the above because you did use Sperry's definition of the Mind (remember you gave me that definition in the first place).

LordTheus:


I think you are conflating property dualism with materialism, which is no fault of yours anyway since both arguments actually seem similar at surface level. I accept that the mind is an emergent phenomenon from the brain, but I also assert that this phenomenon is created by observable material interactions in the brain, and cannot manifest without. I reject the notion that the mind can exist independent of the brain. Contrary to your suggestion, there is no selectivity at play here

Bluezy13:


In my observation, this argument would have long been done with if you were mindful of your choice if words.

Why do you seek to describe, define or explain the mind if it is a phenomenon ??
The term phenomenon is understood to be an occurrence, a fact, an event, an attribute or property that cannot be fully explained, understand or described...but existing.
Attached below are definitions from Oxfordlearners and Mariam Webster dictionaries.

LordTheus:


Ok. I get your point. I suppose property but would be an apt term to use. I tend to overlook semantics in debate because usually in my experience, I've discovered that people mean different things when they use certain words due to a lack of proper understanding of the word. However, sometimes if you pay close attention to the context of discussion and usage of the word, you'll understand what they're trying to say. Thanks anyways

Magnoliaa:


I don't think my help is needed anymore at this stage, lol.

Bluezy13:
I understand.
How have you been ?

Short answer: I've been good. How are you?

Magnoliaa:


Short answer: I've been good. How are you?

Bluezy13:
I have been okay.

Magnoliaa:


U srue?

Bluezy13:
Yea...
I supposed you have been very busy lately.

Magnoliaa:


Nope. Just taking a break from posting.

Bluezy13:
It's okay.
I will be waiting by the corner.

Should I come and meet you?

Magnoliaa:


Should I come and meet you?

Bluezy13:
Yea...sure.

Only if it will be convenient for you

Magnoliaa:


Only if you're not saying there should be a reason why it wouldn't be convenient for me...?

Bluezy13:
Of course I am not saying that.
I would love you to come.
I want you to come.

But the "when", is your choice to make.
"As soon as possible" is my expectation.

Lol...

Good morning.

Magnoliaa:


Lol...

Good morning.

Bluezy13:
Good morning,
How are you doing ?

Magnoliaa:

Great. Sorry for the late response.

I want to show you some pictures...

Mindlog:
We covered that at the undergraduate level, PSY 201 Psychology of Personality.

Magnoliaa:

Great. Sorry for the late response.

I want to show you some pictures...

Bluezy13:
How did you know I love them

I have lots on my phone
Among others, I'm definitely taking that of the little girl by the door.

It was first of all an inkling. Because of your profile picture. And something else I can't remember, before I saw your comment confirming that you like those kind of pictures.

And I was like, "hey, me too. I love them. I am going to show it to him."

Those kids smiling is everything.

PS: How do some of you keep a profile picture for years? Years? Like, damn! Can't be me for anything in the world.

Magnoliaa:


It was first of all an inkling. Because of your profile picture. And something else I can't remember, before I saw your comment confirming that you like those kind of pictures.

And I was like, "hey, me too. I love them. I am going to show it to him."

Those kids smiling is everything.

PS: How do some of you keep a profile picture for years? Years? Like, damn! Can't be me for anything in the world.

Bluezy13:
I cherish those pictures...
Sometimes, I can be browsing through them for hours looking for nothing in particular.

I can imagine.

There was a picture I used before this present one, two local children... a boy and a girl, hands crossed and smiling innocently at each other. I am still looking for the picture on my storage.

the way, it appears the relation between scarcity and demand as stated by the Economists is being applied between you and I.

To both of us? Abi one person is the scarce commodity and another is the buyer demanding for it?