Why is your question called "Are minds confined to brains?".

Do you think minds can exist on other stuff than a working brain in a living body?

The author wrote, "When we look at a bird, we see the bird, not the activity in our brain." That is contrary to my understanding of how we see things. — Qwertyportne

Vision indeed originates in your brain. That's why your dog sees the bird differently than you. Do you think you see the brain activity when seeing a bird?

Are ghosts confined to machines?

If I am experiencing the bird, not the activity in my brain, why does my dog see a different image than the image I see? — Qwertyportne

Isn't that question-begging? Do you have to assume that either of you sees an image? Couldn't it be that you are reminded of images, and start preparing to compare them; while the dog is reminded of chasing routines, and starts preparing to execute them?

Light reflected from the object enters my eyes, then travels through the optic nerve to my brain where the image is — Qwertyportne

this is called NAIVE realism

Are Minds Confined to Brains? — Qwertyportne

no

brains are confined to minds

Machines are confined to ghosts?

machines dont exist

machines are just a hallucination ghosts are having

Do you think minds can exist on other stuff than a working brain in a living body? — Raymond

bodies cant exist without minds

That's why your dog sees the bird differently than you — Raymond

dog doesnt see a bird

bird is something in your mind

youll never know what a dog sees

The ghosts are what's real?

the only thing that exists is god and his eternal dream

So, two things?

The way the dog sees the bird is different. Since the biology of a dog is different than ours, it interacts with the world differently than we do. We do not need to insert some image between that which sees and that which is seen.

bodies cant exist without minds — Miller

Can mind exist without bodies? They can't be separated as far as I know. You can't extract a working brain from a working body. Neither can a body walk around without a working brain, although prof. Frankenstein or his modern day successors might claim the contrary.

That's why conscious machines are impossible to construct.

We do not need to insert some image between that which sees and that which is seen. — NOS4A2

You mean an image of how the vision occurs? The image of the so-called real bird, photons scattering from it, retinal meeting, nerve signals, etc?

We do not need to evoke images to describe the difference between how the dog sees and how the human sees, is what I meant.

dog doesnt see a bird — Miller

Then why was the neighbor's cat, chasing a bird, chased by a dog?

We do not need to evoke images to describe the difference between how the dog sees and how the human sees, is what I meant.[/quot

Can one do it with sound? You have to evoke something in describing it. — NOS4A2

the only thing that exists is god and his eternal dream — Miller

Am I a part of the Almighty's dream?

You and your dog see the same bird, but in different ways.

Do you think minds can exist on other stuff than a working brain in a living body? — Raymond

The only thing we know that exists for sure is our own mind. If minds come from brains, how do brains produce minds?

You and your dog see the same bird, but in different ways. — Banno

3 things here: (1) what I see, (2) what the dog sees, (3) the bird.

Describe each for me so I know what you're talking about. Tell me about the sort of feathers each has.

We do not need to insert some image between that which sees and that which is seen — NOS4A2

It's a scientific fact that we experience an image as the result of some sort of stimuli. I don't understand your use of the phrase "we do not need to." Need to for what? In order to offer a coherent explanation of the bird even if that means denying an obvious scientific fact?

Is the mind confined to the brain? Socrates was of the opinion that the body is a, get this, prison for the soul. It follows then that only bad people reincarnate (metempsychosis). Squares with Buddhism's samsara and liberation (nirvana) from this soul recycling plant.

Plotinus, the last of the pagan philisophers, was of the opinion that the body (includes the brain) was in the soul rather than the other way round. I'm using soul and mind interchangeably.

What image? If someone is to proclaim that an image exists between the perceiver and that which is perceived he should be able to produce this image, or at least describe the medium it is appears upon. But he cannot.

So why should we insert this image into our discourse it those who assert it is there are unable to produce it or even point to it?

So why should we insert this image into our discourse it those who assert it is there are unable to produce it or even point to it? — NOS4A2

Every experience arises from stimuli, whether that be the bird you experience or the freedom you feel.

Where is the freedom you experience? Point to it, since you've taken the impossible stance that every experience is equivalent to its referent, even though it is not a necessary property of nouns that they have a referent.

Vision is just one sense that informs us of reality and it happens to be a human being's primary sense, but my visual stimuli received of the bird is no more the bird than the sound of the rustling of its feathers is to my cat, who goes into attack mode when she hears a small animal scurrying about.

We do not need to evoke images to describe the difference between how the dog sees and how the human sees, is what I meant. — NOS4A2

Images are a type of information and is what is evoked to describe the difference.

Is there really that much of a difference if TV screens with images of birds can trigger the same type of behaviors in dogs as if they had seen a real bird? If we can use a trick of light to make humans and dogs see birds that aren't there, then isnt there some similarity between how we both see birds?

So there is no image, no medium upon which it appears, and no little perceiver to look at it. None of that exists when we physically examine the biology. Upon further examination we find that the biology is in direct contact with its environment, the perceiver in direct contact with perceived, no gap between them.

So there is no image, no medium upon which it appears, and no little perceiver to look at it. None of that exists when we physically examine the biology. Upon further examination we find that the biology is in direct contact with its environment, the perceiver in direct contact with perceived, no gap between them. — NOS4A2

There is a gap between the perceived and perceiver. You can take out a measuring stick and determine how big a gap there is between the flower and your eye. You can then measure the length of the eyeball, the neural networks, and get a final measurement back to the brain. Over the course of that 10 feet, there are all sort of things happening, from variations in light, curvatures of lenses, to reduction of stimuli into electrical impulses. The evidence is that those mediating influences impact the images (or smells or sounds or whatever) as we can see that other organisms perceive objects differently than we do. In fact, variations in perception occur even among humans.

I am certain there is an image of the flower. It is indubitable. My certainty that I am experiencing an image I believe to be a flower greatly exceeds my belief that there is a flower.

You and your dog see the same bird, but in different ways. — Banno

THE BIRD

Baby bird asks mama bird:

"Why did dog chase baby bird, mama?"

Mama bird answers:

"Because you are a tasty meal tweetly."

Baby bird is scared by this reply. It crawls under mama's wings.

"Baby bird no nice mean bird, mama bird!"

After a while, baby bird seems relaxed.

"Mama bird, why some people wanna put baby bird in a cage?"

With a smiling beak mama bird pets her tweety over the head.

"Because you gonna be an excellent singer, and are good company, birdy little."

Baby bird joyfuly attempts to sing a song.

"Baby bird is a songbird mama bird!"

Baby bird shines. A new question pops up.

"Mama bird, why is there so many skies up there?"

Mama bird rises up, spreads her wings, and takes of. Out of the air, circling the nest, mama screams excited:

"BECAUSE YOU GONNA BE A GREAT FLYYYYYER, YAHOOOOOO!"

Baby bird watches in awe how mama bird shows off a fine piece of dazzle flying.

"MAMA MAMA! BABY BIRD WANNA LEARN, BABY BIRD WANNA LEARN!"

Mama bird rises up high, after which she return to the nest. She shakes her feathers, then her head, and settles down.

"That was great mama!"

Baby bird tries to imitate the movements mama bird made.

"I wanna learn how to be a FlYAAAAR! Baby bird is a flyyyyer bird!"

Rest returns.

"Mama, where has sister bird gone? I miss her. When she comes back?"

Mama bird sits in silence for a while. Then she says:

"Look here son. Like all other animals, like you, like me, sister bird was a little child animal of the big God Animal, you remember? That big animal behind the sky. God Animal made us all mortal. Sister bird, me, and and also you."

Baby bird looks confused and then decisely asks:

"But why she doesn't return? Because she's a moatel?"

Mama bird is slightly amused.

"A MORtal. That just means you can never return."

Baby bird looks even more confused and thinks back.

"Is that because the people took her? Did they put her in a cage to sing and be good company?"

Mama bird laughs sadly.

"No son. The people didn't take her to put her in a cage. She would have returned already if they did that. Sister bird was smart. She could have escaped from the cage. No, the people who took her away were mean people. They made sure she can never return by stuffing her. She never can fly again."

"Was sister bird that hungry? Did they stuff too many foods in her? Is that why sister bird can't fly no more? Why didn't the people bring her back?"

Mama bird wants to laugh and cry at the same time. How can she make it clear? She decides to tell the truth, shocking as that might be.

"Listen son. Bad people made sure she can never move again. She stands silently in a room of a house the people made. Sister bird can't fly, can't speak, can't hear, can't look, can't eat, and can't sing anymore. The bad people took stuff out of sister bird and put other stuff inside her. She is good company now for the people who took her. Sister bird stands still forever in a house they built where all people can see her. People call her a bird."

"But sister bird is sister bird!"

The camera moves away from the nest and magically appears in a quiet street in Barstow, directs itself at a dirty window, and enters the space behind.

And behold! Sister bird stands motionless in the striking light of a soft-tone economy bulb, her stagnated eyes fixed at a collection of static, mutually transfixed brother and sister animals.

An agitated person moves around the platform on which she has placed sister bird in company with different dead brother and sister animals. There is something she can't seem to grasp. She walks around the macabre group, increasingly nervous, bending her knees to look from below, walking around to look from all sides.

Then she curses, repositiones the animals around sister bird, and redirects the light shining on the set scene. And again she walks around the set. And again she gets agitated.

"God damned, bloody animals! Just show me your right positions! I gave you the right light already!"

Sister bird and the brother and sister animals are not disturbed, nor amused. They keep staring passed one another.

The woman looks at the bunch from all sides, deliberating and questioning. Then she stands still and seems to have grasped something from where she stands. She looks a part of the silenced set while her eyes are fixed on sister bird who just keeps staring in the dark. The woman then sighs relieved and calmly starts to remove all brother and sister animals until sister bird is the only one left. Again, she redirects the light falling on sister bird. When she's done the artist moves to her easel, smiles contented, and start to paint the scene.

The camera moves away, to enter the Museum of Natural History, 200 Central Park West, New York, NY 10024. We find ourselves in the middle of the Science Sense Tour: Hall of Planet Earth. There's a whole lot to be seen. I'll not bother to go into details. But there is one item in particular in which the camera seems interested. It floats through the busy crowd and countless museum items to stay put in front of a painting hanging on the wall. The hustle bustle of the crowed grows numb. And look who's there on the wall! As fully stuffed she once was, so flat is she's now. Majestically sister bird radiates from the painting.

The camera moves to the small slide next to the painting. Below the artist's name, the title reads: "BIRD".

There are two common mistakes I see occurring.

The first is Sheldrake's general approach, which is one of inappropriately radical skepticism. To engage in a reductio ad absurm - one might as well ask if the rules of logic are dogmatic, reasonably conclude that in some sense they are, and then intimate that on those grounds we should feel free to selectively reject the rules of logic if they are inconvenient to us, missing the fact that what they are concluding will be illogical. Sheldrake's approach is fundamentally unscientific, but he wants the stink of science on his work.

The second is confusing speaking of experience as if it we an object and not an event. There is no thing that is "the experience of seeing a bird", having the experience is something that happened. The experience doesn't happen in my brain (or mind, doesn't matter) or in the world, it happens when my brain interacts with the world. Without both things, you don't have an experience.