This is a profound question. The "inner world" does not reflect the truth of the "outer world", which is truth itself...the truth of physical reality. That is why I generally like to refer to said "inner world" as "the/a world" ("the world" when the subjective experience is held in common, and "a/his/her/it's world" otherwise), and to said "outer world" as "the universe" or simply "reality". Even so, for human beings, and from the human perspective, the "world" is every bit as important as the "universe". This having been said, I would estimate that when dealing with matters concerning the individual or group human perspective, the "world" should be placed on an equal footing with the "universe". However, when dealing with questions of ultimate reality, especially with questions of "pure science", the "universe" should be given primacy of place. For instance, we humans cannot, in making our day-to-day decisions, base them upon the absolutely true fact that our bodies, being composed of atoms which themselves are upwards of 90% empty space, are themselves upwards of 90% empty space...Cant we see the inner world as being on equal level with the outer physical world? — Prishon
However, when dealing with questions of ultimate reality, especially with questions of "pure science", the "universe" should be given primacy of place. — Michael Zwingli
Can you please also bring in my quote that you are referring to? Thanks. — Alkis Piskas
The relationship between the brain and the mind is a significant challenge both philosophically and scientifically. This is because of the difficulty in explaining how mental activities, such as thoughts and emotions, can be implemented by physical structures such as neurons and synapses, or by any other type of physical mechanism. This difficulty was expressed by Gottfried Leibniz in the analogy known as Leibniz's Mill" — Manuel
No, to @Cheshire. His name is mentioned in my comment ... Has TFP lost control?Is this addressed to me? — Prishon
The spirit (soul), YOU, yourself, an awareness unit that is aware of being aware. None of these can be identified with the brain, a network of neurons that reveive and transmit signals in the form of particles or waves.If the brain isn't a person, then who is? — Luke
That TFP notified you about a post that mentioned your name, when your name wasn't in that post. (This is how I personally respond to comments, from TPF notifications to me.)Has TFP lost control?
— Alkis Piskas
What do you mean by this? — Prishon
OK, this explains it! :smile: (But still, it was addressed to @Cheshire! :grin:)I think I have... I mistook triangulation for trinity. — Prishon
But then of course you can always select yourself and respond to a post that doesn't mention your name! :smile: I repeat, the post mentioned Cheshire, not @Prishon. — Alkis Piskas
OK, this explains it! :smile: (But still, it was addressed to Cheshire! :grin:) — Alkis Piskas
the thoughts produced by a hypothetical "brain kept alive in a jar" would be totally different, and so the "world" thus created would be totally different, from those of the same brain if it were part of a human body... — Michael Zwingli
The "inner world" does not reflect the truth of the "outer world — Michael Zwingli
Thanks. :smile: I can see why I couldn't connect your comment to something I said. It's because it referred to the above quotation, which I used from Wikipedia.Can you please also bring in my quote that you are referring to? Thanks.
— Alkis Piskas
"The relationship between the brain and the mind is a significant challenge both philosophically and scientifically. This is because of the difficulty in explaining how mental activities, such as thoughts and emotions, can be implemented by physical structures such as neurons and synapses, or by any other type of physical mechanism. This difficulty was expressed by Gottfried Leibniz in the analogy known as Leibniz's Mill" — Manuel
OK, we have resolved this.WhenI replied I saw too late that it was addressed Chesire. I thought it was about the trinity theory. Instead of triangles — Prishon
Argument From Incredulity — TheMadFool
So, to reply now to your comment that "Matter is much stranger than how it appears to common sense" ... If by "stranger" you mean "complicated" and by "appears to common sense" you mean "appears when observing it", I agree! — Alkis Piskas
it can only be said that the person, rather than the brain, is thinking, because our thoughts are highly dependent upon the state of our bodies and are continuously effected by neurally transmitted information from our bodies. — Michael Zwingli
Aren't these two statements-positions in conflict?most thought, including all rational thought, interpretative thought and emotive thought, occurs as a result of brain activity — Michael Zwingli
What part of the memory this is? Where is the remaining memory? You don't mention anything else about memory. Well, these are rhetorical questions, so you don't have to reply because they belong to some other topic.some memory seems to be stored in cells/tissues outside of the brain, in other parts of the body — Michael Zwingli
This is not the same as saying that thought occurs "within the brain", though. — Michael Zwingli
Again, aren't these two statements-positions in conflict?It is, therefore, not wrong to say that thought "occurs in the brain" — Michael Zwingli
Thought is not a highly subjective human experience: it is a totally subjective experience. How could it have a reality (existence) outside the body?Thought is a highly subjective human experience, and one person's thought cannot be said to have any reality outside of the body (using that term as inclusive of the brain) of that individual person. — Michael Zwingli
I don't know or can understand what does this mean. Should I study monism or something? — Alkis Piskas
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.