Does this make any compelling arguments that NDEs represent continued cognition after the physical brain isn't active? — TiredThinker

OK, we know about the "fuss" that the subject of NDE has produced and continues to produce. In reading this article, a question came to my mind: Well, NDE is still "Near Death Experience". What we actually need is an ADE, i.e., "After Death Experience". That would consist a much stronger if not ultimate evidence about life after death. But I don't think this is likely to happen ...

Now, there are a few other things that are used as an evidence for afterlife. One of them is regression. There's a lot of documentation of reports from patients recalling past lives. Yet, even here there's a great controversy about the authenticity and validity of these reports.

So, we always come back to point zero in this subject!

People tell me that since I am good at the game Four in a row I am very good at logical think.
Is this really logic at all? If it is, then what kind of logic is used when playing that game? — musicpianoaccordion

Every game requires logic to a greater or lesser degree. "Four in a row" or "Four in a line" or "Connect Four" does not require more logic than average. That is, I wouldn't consider it as a test for logical thinking. There are many other games that qualify for such a test: Chess, Checkers, Othello, Go, Sudoku, Rubik's Cube, Mastermind, Poker and other card games ... In general, games that fall under the category of "Strategy", "Logic" and "Math".

1. Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar, or lord
2. Jesus wasn’t a liar or a lunatic
3. Therefore, Jesus must be lord
Something about this argument has always seemed a bit dissatisfactory to me — tryhard

Just a bit? :smile: It's one of these shallow and unfounded argumentation schemes one comes upon each now and then. In (1), Jesus could be much more things than just those three and (2) is totally arbitrary and unfounded: how can one know that?

But what strikes me here is that Lewis is said to have a great mathematical mind and he is known for his logical implications and extrapolations. Which leads me to believe that either the above argumentation is not his (quotes attributed to wrong persons is not something uncommon) or he presented the above scheme as a bad example of argumentation!

Compare the above with the following plausible argumentation scheme, which I just made up, using the same historical context:

1. Mary being a virgin when she conceived Jesus is true or a lie.
2. Human parthenogenesis can occur but it cannot result in the birth of a child.
(2a. Jesus was born as a healthy child and has grown up as a healthy person, according to the Bible.)
3. Therefore, Mary being a virgin when she conceived Jesus is a lie.

In (1), there cannot be some other case than true or a lie and (2) is based on scientific data. (2a) is not necessary but it completes the whole argument better.)

some you educated folks on here. — Watchmaker

Why, there are only some folks that are edutated here? The rest are not?

To use math is to apply mathematics. A — Metaphysician Undercover

There's a big difference between using and applying in this context. Using a screwdriver or a key is not applying mechanics! Using multiplication or division is not applying mathematics. Both Mechanics and Mathematics are sciences containing laws, theorems, axioms, and othe theory as well as applications. So applying mechanics or math means taking such laws, theorems, axioms, and other theory into consideration. A boy can fly a toy airplane without having the slightest idea about and aerodynamics, and yet he uses aerodynamics without knowning what that is. And I can use a car without knowing and/or applying knowingly any elements of car mechanics.
I hope that all this makes the difference between using and applying in the context of Mathematics, as it is layout in this topic.

That's all for me. I won't come back on this issue.

The little Latin I knew from school has been faded away. So, I have to believe you! :grin:

Right. I rarely if ever use the term "conscience", but I can see that in this case it fits perfectly!

It means to treat mathematically — Metaphysician Undercover

Right. Which is totally different than just use Math/Arithmetic/Probability terms which I have already pointed out. Just using words like multiply/divide, constant, cube, diameter, probable/improbable, 50% chances or one in two cases, average, and so on is not mathematizing.
When people utter common phrases like "Life is not fair", "Humans are intelligent beings", etc., this doesn't mean that they are philosophizing. Most probably they are not able to expand or explain or argue on those statements in a (standard) philosophical way.

But it is usually better to ask. It also gives the other a chance to process more. — skyblack

Right.

Does mystery bother you? Or does it move you? — skyblack

Mystery can create various effects: from despair to frustration to indifference to wondering to interest to thurst for knowledge ... The mystery I mentioned had nothing to do with any of them. It was just a figure of speech. :smile:

In ideal conditions, the human intellect can explain anything, with one exception: it can't explain Everything. — Tate

Isn't that a commonplace?

There's nothing to relate it to, causally or otherwise. This is the intellect's limit. — Tate

We don't know what is the intellect's limit and thus there's no meaning talking about it.
Things like "God created everything, what created God?" are empty questions, anyway, since God is a human invention. So it depends what limits we have given and are giving to such an imaginary entity.

That's it. It's the limit. You can't explain Everything.
A high percentage of philosophers throughout history failed to take that into consideration. — Tate

Why, do you know of any philosopher who has ever said that there's no limit in what we can know or that we can explain everything?

The good man enjoys sound sleep but the bad man doesn't. It boils down to that. Unfortunately, it seems this is more fiction than fact - to be found only/mostly in novels/plays/movies that aren't, as they say, based on a true story — Agent Smith

Well, first of all you never know how well or not someone sleeps. And then, it has to do with someone's ethical standards. I believe that criminals can sleep perfectly well, because they have their own "criminal" standards of ethics based on the group they belong to or are identified with. E.g. Mafia people place "family, "honor" and "loyalty" very high in their standards. And as long as they don't break these standards --i.e. their integrity-- I believe they can have a perfect sleep!
The same goes with cannibals eating human flesh ... It's in their menu of the day! :grin:

The universe never fails to humble us, but rarely seems to lift us up. Lol. — TiredThinker

Nice and believable figure of spech. "Hey, throw us a bone, man!" :grin:

Do you mind saying what your reply was ? — Hello Human

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/720343
But it's too late now. I have deleted it about a week ago.

So if using mathematics in a field of study does not constitute mathematizing it, then what does? — Metaphysician Undercover

You still didn't look up the term "mathematize", did you?

Fair enough.
... But, hey, you still didn't answer me! :smile:

And in interest of letting you folks continue i'm not even going to mention Un-Gnosis. — skyblack

Well, you did mention it! :grin: It's too late now. You must tell us about it and not just leave us in mystery!

The issue is by and large about uncertainty, just what the mathematics of probability was invented to deal with. — Agent Smith

Uncertainty refers to something that is not certain, i.e. not known or definite and not to be relied on. Where does Math come in this? Even if we attach numbers to uncertainly, e.g; 1/3, 50%, etc., this would not be enough for qualifying a subject as a mathematical one. Probability, chances, certaintly, uncertainty, and so forth may be terms used in Math of probabilities, but also in all kinds of fields or areas, including everyday language.

And, BTW, asking "What are the chances that a baby, any baby, will find life worth it?" that you mentioned as an example, is not only far from being a mathematical one but it also has no meaning, because what is the criterion for life to be considered worthy or not? This is totally subjective/personal. One can only ask this question to himself, based on the criteria one has regarding a worthy life. And that could be qualified as a philosophical question.
Then, what is the acceptable smallest percentage of chances for a baby not to have a worthy life --based on whatever criteria-- that one is willing to accept in deciding to have a baby oir not? Some decide not to have a baby based on the idea that the slightest chance for their baby not having a worthy life is enough. Other may put that to 50% and other --the vast majority-- do not consider such a question at all in their decision to have a baby!

No, there's absolutely no mathematics in any of that! :smile:

Aren't probabilities and statistics mathematical? — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course they are. Simple arithmetic is too. I didn't say they aren't. I said "Using probabilities and statistics in any framework of thought, philosophical or other, is not mathematizing." So, you should most probably check the meaning of the word "mathematize".
It's one thing to use use probabilities in discussing a subject and another thing to consider or treat a subject as a mathematical one (i.e, "mathematize" it.) Because then, all mathematical questions and problems could be considered also as philosophical ones!

Gnosticism is not part of philosophy. It is a Christian heresy. — javi2541997

Right. But although Gnosticism is connected to Gnosis, it's not the subject of this topic. It is not even mentioned in the OP. And, in contrast with Gnosis, it is a well-defined and commonly/widely accepted term.
And I know about the Gnostic Gospels. A very long time ago I was quite interested in and read a couple of them.

I still defend the same base which involves this topic: Gnosis is not related to philosophy but it could be an interesting topic to debate about. — javi2541997

OK.

Using probabilities and statistics in any framework of thought, philosophical or other, is not mathematizing. Probabilities and statistics are used everywhere and concern almost everything, in every bit and corner in life. (As besides is Math, in general.) Probabilities, in particular, are part of logic, and logic, although a basic element in Philosophy, it is not and exclusivity of or copyrighted by it. It is used in all kinds of arguments, descriptions, positions, solutions, explanations, proofs, and so forth, by people from all walks of life.

Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad I could contribute in this topic, well, "by accident", since itself has no well-defined shape, flesh or bones. :smile:

it seems to be connected with "mystery" or occultism — javi2541997

Yes, it seems it has this color too! :smile:

He did something related in another post but he never answered me — javi2541997

Indeed, he doesn't look much of an answering guy ... He didn't answer me neither. Or, simply he is eclectic, because from what I saw, he answered only to @180 Proof ...

Maybe the OP was referring if we can put Gnosis inside a classical source of knowledge such as a rationalism or empiricism (?) — javi2541997

I wouldn't bet on that. If it has not been classifiled, placed anywhere till now, most brobably it simply can't.
Besides, we have already enough philosophical concepts and terms in our store to argue about! :grin:
So, as far as I am concerned, I will continue to consider the word "Gnosis" --as a term and concept-- as something useless, and not talk about it any more.

Gnosis is the direct experience of knowledge and wisdom. — Bret Bernhoft

I'm not sure how do you mean this. It sounds like "the experience one has from knowledge", which doesn't make much sense to me; I can't get what that could be. But it would certainly make sense to me if you had said "the knowledge that comes from (direct) experience".
Anyway, wouldn't it be better if you had brought in definitions of the term "Gnosis" or at least a more complete description, since it is the key term in this topic?

Well, I will do it for you:

"Gnosis" from ...

Oxford LEXICO: "Knowledge of spiritual mysteries."

Merriam Webster: "Esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation".

Collins: "Supposedly revealed knowledge of various spiritual truths, esp that said to have been possessed by ancient Gnostics"

Quite confusing, eh? (Although the "spiritual" element is common in every case.) Well, this is maybe because "Gnosis" is not an established tern.
On the other hand, we get much more enlightened from next source:

Wikipedia: "Gnosis is the common Greek noun for knowledge. The term was used among various Hellenistic religions and philosophies in the Greco-Roman world. It is best known for its implication within Gnosticism, where it signifies a spiritual knowledge or insight into humanity's real nature as divine, leading to the deliverance of the divine spark within humanity from the constraints of earthly existence."

But also in Wikipedia, one reads "In chaos magic, gnosis or the gnostic state refers to an altered state of consciousness in which a person's mind is focused on only one point, thought, or goal and all other thoughts are thrust out. The gnostic state is used to bypass the 'filter' of the conscious mind – something thought to be necessary for working most forms of magic. Since it takes years of training to master this sort of Zen-like meditative ability, chaos magicians employ a variety of other ways to attain a 'brief no-mind state' in which to work magic."[/i]

(Note that Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have no articles on "Gnosis", only on "Gnosticism". Which indicates that it is not a (standard) philosophical subject by itself.)

No wonder then why "Gnosis" is underappreciated ...

***

BTW, I have not voted because the question of the poll --"Is Gnosis a useful source of knowledge ..."-- is inconsistent with your initial description of Gnosis, i.e. that it is an experience of knowledge ...

I accepted it because the magic wasn't essential to the point asked by the OP. — noAxioms

Well, it isn't just the word "magic". It's its combination with the word "portal" that creates the whole effect. I don't know, maybe @TiredThinker should have presented the subject rather in a Sci-fi Convention. I believe it would have received a warm welcome! :grin:
(OK, enough with this joke; it was good while it lasted! As for Physics, it's not my cup of tea.)

in a way you could say that personal integrity comes before all other considerations -- including others, as has been pointed out here. — Moliere

Yes, I could say that. But I wouldn't call it a "consideration", which refers to something to take into account, i.e. a thought a fact or any element that one uses to make a decision about something. I see integrity as an ethical state and practice in which a person shows consistent and uncompromising adherence to (his) ethical standards. This is what "integral" means: whole. We also have the term "integer" in Math, which means a whole number, not a fraction.

A very dear and important to me term and concept!

BTW, the word "personal" in connection to intergrity is redundant, although it is widely and commonly used. Esp. in an ethical context, it always refers to a person. Yet, I have been using it myself for years! It sticks with you. But I would never say, e.g. "A man with personal integrity", but rather "a man of/with integrity". Note that in Greek, we normally use simply "intergrity" in all cases. The word is preseved from Ancient Greek to our day, with only a slightly different ending in demotic Greek, since the last quarter of the 20th c.

Physics would suppose that the universe can and has indeed existed before consciousness arose — Benj96

Just to mention that some philosophers believe the opposite: that it is consciousness that has created the universe. I personally have no cognition or enough data or logical reason why and how this could be the case.
Anyway, these things are like sailing in uncharted waters. And I have better and more useful things to do! :smile:

you *should* consider that you'll always be with yourself. — Moliere

This idea makes me think of personal integrity. Do you also see the connection?

received its fuel through a magical portal — TiredThinker

Strange thing that your physicists did not welcome your idea about "magical portals"! :grin:

First of all: Kudos for bringing in definitions! :up:
I always applaud this because it is quite rare --even a lot are against it!-- and I find it very important, esp. in discussions taking place in media like this one.

Now, I'm not sure if you want to refer strictly to this term and not to "Phenomenology", which is much more commonly used in philosophy. (This is the problem with "-isms": they are used as frameworks in which a subject is confined and quite often in a wrong way. person's position on a subject is bound.)

We have five physical senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell. — Art48

There are a lot more senses, which are recognized today as such, beyond the classic 5 ones: balance, weight, motion/movement/kinaesthesia, velocity/speed, spatial/orientation, body position, pressure, vibration, temperature, pain, and more ...

So, how can we experience a tree? The answer seems to be we don’t directly experience a tree. — Art48

Certainly. But it looks to me that this is a subject of Phenomenology and not Phenomenalism. The word "how" betrays it. But then, maybe I am wrong. That's why I avoid to use "-isms" if their mentioning is not necessary. And I believe that using "Phenomenalism" in order to ask this interesting question and describe the subject related to it, is not at all necessary.

Now, having an "experience" of something can mean different things, but here I believe we mean having an immediate contact of an object via our senses. Right? This then becomes a knowledge about that object. This, although it is usually the right sequence, it can also work the other way around. Here's an example:

In a botanical garden that I'm vesting for the first time, I see a quite weird object that looks like tree but I am not sure; it could also be a plant. I come nearer and read the tag. It says: "Bottle tree". There. I have an experience of such a tree. And the next time I see it I will recognize it, i.e. I will know what it is, because my first experience became knowledge.
Next day, I talk about my very interesting visit to the botanical garden --there were a lot more of interesting things there-- to a friend and show him some photos I took, including that of the "bottle tree". My friend was intrigued and he visited too the garden after a few days. When he reached at the location of the "bottle tree" he immediately recognized from a distance, because he had a knowledge of it from the info I had given to him. He then also got an experience of it.

our mind accesses the idea of “tree” because the idea makes sense of our sense data. — Art48

Well, a tree is not an abstract idea so that we have an idea of it. It is an object, something concrete. So I would say that, independently of its name, i.e. the word "three", it exists in our mind as an image connected to various data (knowledge) we have about it.

Here's how the Belgian surrealist painter René Magritte explains this phenomenon with his painting and a famous phrase:



"This is not a pipe". Indeed, it isn't; it's "an image of a pipe".

I have deleted my reply to the topic. This topic and the person created it dit not worth it.
It is the second time @Hello Human has not responded to my reply, although both my replies were positive and approving.

I also saw that he/she actually did not respond to anyone else in this topic after 12 days he/she created it. Think also that he/she explicitly asked at the end "But what do you think?"

I suggest that you also delete yours. (Replace the text of your comment with just a dot and save it.) But then you might have some reason not to.

.

anytime you define terms, you should be aware that you are establishing the goalposts for the argument, — SatmBopd

You keep repeating this, as if it is something one shouldn't do. So I maybe get it wrong. Maybe you mean that one puts a subject. together with his argments, positions, etc., in a framework or context, in or from which he is viewing it and discussing (about) it. Which is very good and I have stressed this point in a few occasions as something desirable or even necessary, even if it is implied/understood or explained/indicated by one's examples and descriptions in general, and not experessed directly and explicitly. So, I hope you mean samething like that too. :smile:

Like given the question "Does God exist?", far from thinking we should not define our terms, I think that defining our terms is basically the only interesting thing to do. "What is God? And what does it mean to exist?" — SatmBopd

This is a very good example, at least as I see it. Asking "Does God exist?", without explaining what one means by the word "God" is totally useless. It's actually an empty question. Beacause it immediately raises a (counter) questions like "What God?", "What kind of God?" etc.
The concept and nature of God is different in major religions --Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, etc.-- as well in minor ones. Also, God means a different thing to different people.

But this is inot so important as that when this question is seen from another aspect: People imagine/create/conceive of a concept that they call "God", they are used to it, it becomes part of their lives, etc. and after some time they start asking if this concept exists! It's quite stupid, isn't it?
I'm imagining a dragon, with wings and a huge mouth from which flames come out and all that. It looks so real that it becomes part of my existence, mainly in my mind, but I also have indications that it actually exists somewhere in the external world. Then I become so used to it that after some time I forget that I have created it myself, with my imagination. Then, I start asking "Does my dragon exist?"

So I guess I thought it would just be more honest, and rigourous if the whole discussion... basically revolved around defining terms? — SatmBopd

Yes, I believe it should. In fact, I was thinging myself to launch a discussion on a simple topic like "How important is the definition of terms?" Simple, and yet quite debatable from what I have gathered in my experience with TPF, since almost a year ago. There are a lot who are even against dictionaries and encyclopedias. Can't get it. Where else one can resort to find and undestand e.g. what does the term "teleological" mean or be sure about what it means? Well, believe it or not. A lot --if not most-- of people are satisfied with what they thing terms like this mean and keep on with their reading or discussion!
And this is one of the main reasons people become unintelligent.

So, yes, maybe you could have worded the problem differently ... But I'm glad --and relieved! :smile:-- that you were actually meaning what you are saying here!

Anytime you define terms, you are already establishing the goal posts for the argument, — SatmBopd

So, one should never define the tesms one uses?

I believe that you are referring to those who give arbitrary definitions, tailor-made to their argumentation and position, as you mentioned in the argumentation process a lot of people commonly use here, about which I agree.

But you cannot generalize the phenomenon and just discard --or even worse, be against-- the very important action of defining terms. It's a huge mistake!

The disastrous consequences from the lack of definitions are already very visible. Don't make the situation worse, please!

Rest in Peace to all those who have left us — René Descartes

:down: I find this metaphor totally inappropriate and very bad taste.
People who leave this or any other place may be very "alive" and happy!

Thanks. :smile:

I have heard theories that the brain could be a sort of “transmission tower or receiver” that has the capacity to condense and accelerate the properties and abilities of the environment at large that exist anyways - a sort of sluggish, slow and inefficient awareness. — Benj96

Don't listen to rumors! :grin:
Well, one can describe the receiver-transmitter mechanism of the brain in a lot of pompous ways. The don't change this basic characteristic of the brain. Moreover, these "pompous" descriptions often include blunders such as "abilities of the environment". How can the environment have any kind of ability, since the word refers to something that only humans and animals possess, things they are able to do, like skills, etc.
Then we have another one: "sluggish, slow and inefficient awareness". There is no such a thing as a sluggish or slow awareness. Awareness does not move!!

In this way the brain doesn’t generate consciousness — Benj96

You can say that again!

The theory sort of suggests that consciousness as we know it ... — Benj96

I'm not sure if we can as "as we know it" ... I have started to believe that everyone has a different definition. description and view of the term.
"As we know it", should refer to its common, basic meaning, which is the state of being aware --i.e., being able to perceive or notice-- things in our environment and within us.
Now, the further one deviates from that, the more fancy and insubstantial things one can say about consciousness, and about which I don't give a damn.

I was confused because the word “material” seems misleading in that it suggests only the set of things that have mass/matter (which I and many think to be synonymous with materials). — Benj96

I don't blame you. :smile: It indeed looks like "materialism", etymologically at least, refers only to matter. But don't forget that materialism, as a philosopy was develped in ancient times, even the term itself was not yet used. (Re: Archimede's Atom and Greek atomists - Democritus, Leucippus, etc.).
But the existence of what we call "energy" has to wait for quite long to "make the news". And at some point humanity was presented with Einstein's famous equation relating mass to energy. And todya we can talk about

That’s why I used the term physicalism (even if erroneous) because it seemed not to depend on matter being the only way something can exist. — Benj96

No, no. It was not erroneous at all! I just made a remark that you had to connect "physicalism" to "materialism" so that people won't think you are talking about something different than materialism, which is still today the prevailing term. On the other hand, the term "physical" is much mor commonly used in a lot of contexts, e.g. physical universe/world, physical laws, physical vs non-physical, physical attraction, and so on.
I also prefer to use the word "physical" instead of material in a lot of cases.

The subject of your topic is quite important --I want to believe for most of us here-- regardless of the term used.

This has turned into a personal exchange since quite some time ago. Please look at your INBOX.

The highest form of awareness is "being aware of being aware",
— Alkis Piskas
Can that not go on forever? Are you aware that you're aware that you're aware? — universeness

You mean something like "I know that I know that I know ....", right? Well, you can do that if you like and not have anything better to do! :grin: But not if you want to sleep. It will keep you awake! :grin:
Otherwise, just "I know that I know" is enough. It tells all.

But better than looking at the subject conceptually, you can try experiment and have a direct knowledge and experience of it: Just be aware of your environment and notice a sound, or picture or whatever else you like. Then, be aware that you are doing that. I first discovered this ability of "being aware of being aware" when I was young and during a night when I couldn't catch a sleep. It was an amazing revelation and experience! You see, we are having thoughts --trying to solve a problem, imagining a nice day on the beach, ...-- and this is so normal that we are simply used to it. We know well that we are doing that and never be aware that we are doing that or ask who is doing that. And justifiably so. Why should we? What would such a thing serve to? Well, at first, nothing more than a proof that we exist and that we are humans! :grin: Not a big deal, eh? But then we can use that to view our thoughts, problems, emotions and a lot of other things in which we are getting too involved in and being catpured by, from an external, detached point of view. This helps in more things that you one can imagine --including myself! :grin:.

It does not exist in any other form of life.
— Alkis Piskas
How do know that for sure? — universeness

Good question. How could I know if I cannot live as an animal for a while, just to verify that? So, this can be only inferred from the differences we know well between humans and animals, and if that are not enough we can also used some reasoning and/or imagination. Try to think of any animal doing what I described in my previous comment. How long could you hold such a thought? Not even a second. Except of course if you are a cartoon designer! :grin:

Does any aspect of the mind exist in the body? Is all of what you refer to as mind non-physical? Does any aspect of what you refer to as mind reside/exist in the body in your opinion? — universeness

As I said, and as I personally know, understand and can experience, mind is non-physical. And as such, it has no location, since only physical things are located in space. But see, I really don't care about that. In what would that help me? I only care about the manifestations of the mind, how it works and its effects on the body and on itself (feedback).

They must be free to flow everywhere and permeate everything.
— Alkis Piskas
Do you mean that what you are referring to as 'mind' can travel? or are you suggesting there is an aspect of mind which is omnipresent? — universeness

Nothing of the two. I used that just an expression I felt nice about! :grin:
But more specifically, if you want, I was tallk about well defined terms and ideas, which are independent of any framework and thus can stand and be used and be applied everywere --when appropriate, of course.

I think the hard problem may be a pseudoproblem in the sense that science may not be the correct discipline to decide the functioning of the mind — Benj96

It is very good that you have brought this up! :up:

In fact, it's existence the "hard problem" is considered controversial. But this shouldn't be the case.
Since Chalmer's forrmulation of this theory or position, it has been and continues to be used a lot, to a point that it has become a stereotype. And it is discussed from different points of view and environments, both purely scientific and philosophical. But if we isolated from its enviroment and strip it of all "noise" that sourrounds it, "the hard problem of consciousness", as an independent idea, refers to a very simple truth, about which every honest scientist, philosopher or "thinker" should agree: 1) It is a "probelm" because it has not been solved, at least not to the satisfaction of most people and 2) It is "hard" because people have tried to solve it for eons! All that, independently of the environment people tried to solve it.
So, there's no problem with the phease itself. People complicating --their biases, misconceptions and the complicated way their minds work in-- is the problem!

I have also heard --from a honest scientist-- that consciousness is a mystery, which maybe is a better way to express the problem of consciousness, esp. in order to get of the stereotype. But not even that is necessary. Just admitting that the nature and mechanics of consciousness have not been explained fully or even satisfactorily is enough.

if the mind is generated by the brain ... — Benj96

I don't think it is. I don't think any evidence has been offered, except brain reactions to the environment. Of course, since the brain works on a stimulous-reaction basis. In a similar way with a computer, which reacts on programming instructions. The mind though, although it may work on a stimulus-response basis --e.g. on a subconscious level, in aberrated states, in disorders, etc.-- a healthy, non-aberrated mind works in a totally different way. (Not the place and moment to discuss this!)

So alas it’s a conundrum — Benj96

Yes, it really looks so. But again, it hasn't to be so.

I’m simply chose physicalism because I felt it better encapsulated processes in physics that aren’t material but no less exist - such as the photon (which has no mass) and electromagnetism etc - all physical phenomena but with no actual material (atoms/ matter etc). — Benj96

Materialism deals with both matter and energy: "All existence is made up of energy in some form. Matter is a form of energy. All things that exist are made of energy, atoms, molecules, forces and other entities that consist of energy. There are no non-physical or non-material existents." (https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%204%20Metaphysics/Materialism.htm, Chapter 4: Materialism)