Is the mind in the brain or is the brain in the mind?

We don't have a known example of either a mind that exists with a brain or one that exists without a brain since everything we have access to is just perceptual experience. You can hold an alleged brain in your hands and what it'll be is your experience of thinking you're holding a brain. You can't tell it apart from a dream or hallucination where the percptual experience of the thing in your hand didn't actually correspond to an external world that exists independent of you.

This is ensouling drivel.

Would make the distinction that the brain is not the mind, but the brain and body combined, as there's a shitload of influence coming from the below to the above as it were. You can scoop out loads of brain and still have various levels of functioning mind (hell, you can rip out about 50% of the right lobe and still be highly functional.)

But if we're just gonna go here (), as that's the only kinda "you can't prove reality is real" pseudo-philosophical argument one can make on the subject beyond that, then you're outside the realm of science, and should be on or at best - lest you're talking AI or some similar sci-fi stuff. Science only deals in the empirical, and souls (minds without bodies), thus far, aren't.

Though I suppose one could dive into collective minds, there's some science to be had there - granted, that also entails a whole lot more bodies.

>"I-I can't provide any evidence, I'll just pull out the le how can ANYTHING be real conjecture!"
Take this fucking shit to /x/ and get out of Veeky Forums, to do literally fucking anything scientists have to make a couple fundamental assumptions, one of which is that reality is real. If you refuse to even accept that something is real, just fuck off and stop wasting other people's time with your schizophrenic babbling.
Collective brains ala Termites and Ants are still minds that only exist as the result of interactions between individual material brains using physical and chemical signals to communicate to one another. The simple "mind" of an Ant nest or a Termite colony are as strongly grounded in material reality as our own, they just work in a different way.

>you can't prove reality is real

>reality is real

Reality being real != an external world being real. I've never doubted my perceptual experience is real; I've doubted any separate, external world beyond my perceptual experience is real since any evidence you try to come up with is just going to be more perceptual experience. You have nothing but perceptual experience to work with, everything else is an imaginary construct which might correspond to the external world you imagine it to be but you have no way to escape from the perceptions everything you know comes from.

>pseudo-philosophical
Not an argument.
>outside the realm of science
Not an argument.
>schizophrenic babbling
Not an argument.

The concept of a 'mind' is poorly understood. This is a pointless question.

maybe there is no real problem and all these questions are just problems with phrasing and the limits of language? idk

fwiw, it's probably that the mind is in the brain. or that the mind (as in qualia) doesn't really exist, it is just a useful label for a bunch of complex physical phenomena. I think qualia are real, so I am forced into a more Searle like view, but Dennett's view without qualia is coherent. I even think Orch-OR is actually somewhat legit, and Penrose's speculation is actually worth putting some time and money in to. 6 predictions unique to Orch-OR have been confirmed, too.

>maybe there is no real problem and all these questions are just problems with phrasing and the limits of language?

wittgenstein pls leave

no

Solipsism isn't science. It isn't even philosophy, save when studying the history there of. It's just too many drugs making you think things are deeper than they are.

>Collective brains ala Termites and Ants are still minds that only exist as the result of interactions between individual material brains using physical and chemical signals to communicate to one another. The simple "mind" of an Ant nest or a Termite colony are as strongly grounded in material reality as our own, they just work in a different way.
Thus why I said they fall under empirically testable phenomenon, even though it's a fuzzy thing as a result of the sheer complexity, like nearly everything else involving any sort of mind.

Human minds seem to have a collective power of their own as well though - as anyone ever subjected to the jar of jellybeans trick knows - and the mechanisms are considerably less well understood.

>outside the realm of science
>Not an argument.
A completely a valid argument, when deciding which board you should be shitposting on.

Acknowledging you don't know anything beyond your perceptual experience doesn't have to be solipsism either. A world that is nothing but experience doesn't need to have only one person in it. There could be billions of instances of experiential reality interrelated to one another in a way that only involves mind and not physical structures. If you agree, as most people do, that mind / body dualism doesn't make much sense, then what you're left with is saying the mind is a manifestation of physical structures or what we label as physical structures are all in actuality forms of mind.

Incorrect. If you had an argument for WHY something is outside the realm of science or outside the topic of a board then you would have an argument. Stating a conclusion is not an argument.

It's not empirically testable if it's beyond all humanly testable perception. Thus it is not science. Thus .

We know there are limits to human perception and understanding, that math does not necessarily equate to reality. But things that are not part of the empirical world aren't within the scope of science.

Maybe you just didn't read the rest of the post.

Perception isn't beyond perception. You're really arguing that the physical world we assume is real isn't science.

Perception that isn't testable, even mathematically capable of being theorized about, ie. perception beyond all perceptibility, is.

>Perception that isn't testable, even mathematically capable of being theorized about, ie. perception beyond all perceptibility, is.

OK, but who in this thread is talking about "perception beyond all perceptibility" besides you just now?

You are suggesting we cannot test reality because we have to use our perceptions. Regardless of how we fine tune our devices to separate wheat from chaff, that we can never know one iota of reality. That may very well be true, but one cannot test the hypothesis, as to do so requires that same (capital P) Perception.

It's asking whether reality is real. That isn't within the scope of the discipline, and any thread, any thread at all, can be thrown into the resulting solipsism and all science denied by that simple fact... Not that this one isn't more prone to it than most by its very nature, as it basically started on that sorta premise - something beyond testable reality, such as a soul.

Take your pedophile cartoons back to .

Whoever the asshole is, who keeps going through every thread, every night, and bumping them all, just to say this, thus skewing the whole board's decay process, please see a psychiatrist about whoever diddled you and get over it.

/wishsagedidsomething.jpg

ITT anti-philosophy retards get baited by a three worlds problem.

Why is Sendai here?

Take your pedophile cartoons back to .

no.

It's with the soul

The mind is a result of the brain.