OK, but first please handle your post https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/587299 as I requested previously. OK?

Hi. I have asked you to disconnect the statement "some memory seems to be stored in cells/tissues outside of the brain, in other parts of the body" from my name, but the connection is still there. Can you please either delete that post or remove my name from it? (It's the post https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/587299)
Thank you.

For you, my body is part of your physical world — Prishon

There's a single physical world. Its perception by each person, i.e. each person's reality ("inner world", as you call it) regarding the physical world, is different. We live in the same universe. Our reality regarding it differs in general, but we also share a common reality about parts of it.

But for me, being the body that types to you now, the "essence, magical" part of the dual stuff has expressed in my inner world. — Prishon

Yes, your inner world is certainly not part of the physical universe. But this reality does not rest in the body-brain (physical universe).

Regarding the body and the self, I remember the famous Polanski's dilemma in his film "The Tenant":
If I cut off my hand, you say me and my hand.
If I cut off my leg, you say me and my leg.
If I take out my kidney, liver and intestines, you say me and my intestines ...
But if I cut off my head, do you say me and my head or me and my body?
(There are other minor versions too.)

"... what about the other bodies that you see around?" Where do they belong?
— Alkis Piskas
They stay, like me, between their inner world and their outer, physical world. We share things about that outer world and inner world. We share similar outer worlds and inner worlds. — Prishon

I see. So other persons' bodies are not part of your environment, i.e. part of the physical world. They belong to some other dimension, in some other universe. Is this what you mean?
If this is so, how comes that you can see them and touch them?

Whats around my body is my environment. — Prishon

OK, but I asked you: "But what about the other bodies that you see around?" Where do they belong?

don't be afraid to actually criticize my statements — Michael Zwingli

Thank you for letting me criticize your statements. It's very generous of you! :grin: But I never do that, except if I have a good reason to. Not the case! :smile:

Its the body thats between the spirit and the environment. — Prishon

Well, bodies are already part of the environment, the physical world, aren't they? If so, they cannot be between something and the environment, can they? Maybe you think of your body as something separate from the environment. But what about the other bodies that you see around? Do you also think of them as separate from the environment, the physical world?

The body is used for this [communication]. The true you. — Prishon

You are your hands and your feet? Are these the true you? What will happen if one or more members of the body are cut off of person? He would not have a YOU anymore? What about totally paralyzed people who can still communicate very well? They don't have a true self?

I corrected. Thanks for making me know. — Prishon

OK.

I thought you were a oroponent of stored memories. — Prishon

What kind of an opponent is that? Who is against stored memories?

BTW, I already mentioned that there's a difference bwtween "memory" and "memories". The following may be more helpful:
"Memory" from Dictionary.com:
"1. The mental capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions, etc., or of recalling or recognizing previous experiences."
5. A mental impression retained; a recollection."

We talk about the "human memory", "I have a bad memory", etc. And we talk about "childhood memories". Unfortunately this is a problem in English. In Greek, we have two distinct word structures: "mnimi" (= memory) and "anamniseis" (= memories). (Some of course, as in every language that has been distorted with time, use "mnimes" (in plural) to mean memories. But it's wrong. In English it is correct! :smile:

Philosophy is so easy. Can't see what the fuss is about. — Banno

What fuss? Where?

There are no memories stored. — Prishon

It seems that you insist bringing up the statement "some memory seems to be stored in cells/tissues outside of the brain, in other parts of the body" as if I have said that! I could never, never say such a thing. this was said by @Michael Zwingli!

So, I would like please to disconnect this statement from my name! Really, it is unfair, embarassing and annoying! Thank you.

address some of your critiques — Michael Zwingli

I have not made any critique or criticized your post. I only poinpointed some conflicts. And, in fact, as questions, not even as assertions or facts. I have to clear this, and I consider it important, because otherwise our discussion will contain negative elements, which are obtacles to communication and thus undestanding.

The vast bulk of memory is stored within the brain — Michael Zwingli

I see. OK. (This could not be inferred from the rest of your post ...)

Many of the thoughts produced by the brain are engendered by sensory input from the body. — Michael Zwingli

But ... Haven't you started your post by saying "it can only be said that the person, rather than the brain, is thinking ... "? These are evidently in conflict (not a question, but an assertion this time! :smile:) Well, except if you differentiate between "thought" and "thinking", which are generally considered as the same thing. (Except when "thought" is used with the meaning of an independent image or other recollection of the memory. But even in this case, it is part of the thinking process.)

Listen, I can't go on questioning things you say, because my intention and purpose is really to undesrand your position(s) on the subject and certainly not to criticize you. But it looks like I fail on this. So, you can consider this as my problem.

Thanks for the exchange! :smile:

OK. I took it as a correction of a mistaken English expression! :smile:

Thanks for your expressed agreement. :smile:
But where is your comment about "a righthand one" addressed to? For one thing, I know I have not and could not say that ...

What part of the memory this is?
— Alkis Piskas
Memories dont exist. — Prishon

My question was addressed to @Michael Zwingli, who said "some memory seems to be stored in cells/tissues outside of the brain, in other parts of the body" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586765) ... So, it would be better if you addressed your comment directly to him. Except of course if your comment was actually addressed to me as from a independent, third party. (I think this is most probably the case! :smile:)

BTW, the subject was "memory" (mental faculty and system), not "memories" (mental images etc, things that we remember from the past), although these two are related of course.

Sorry you didn't understand it. — Mark Nyquist

This sounds like feeling pity for me for not being able to understand it ... But I guess you actually mean, "Sorry I didn't explain that well" or something like that, right?

As for the "brain states" you are mentioning that we are all supposed to know about and understand:

"Philosophers have been talking about brain states for almost 50 years and as of yet no one has articulated a theoretical account of what one is. In fact this issue has received almost no attention and cognitive scientists still use meaningless phrases like ‘C-fiber firing’ and ‘neuronal activity’ when theorizing about the relation of the mind to the brain." (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09515080600923271)

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

most thought, including all rational thought, interpretative thought and emotive thought, occurs as a result of brain activity — Michael Zwingli

Aren't these two statements-positions in conflict?

some memory seems to be stored in cells/tissues outside of the brain, in other parts of the body — 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.

This is not the same as saying that thought occurs "within the brain", though. — Michael Zwingli

It is, therefore, not wrong to say that thought "occurs in the brain" — Michael Zwingli

Again, aren't these two statements-positions in conflict?

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

Thought is not a highly subjective human experience: it is a totally subjective experience. How could it have a reality (existence) outside the body?
(BTW, I have still to establish what is finally your position about whether thought is created and takes place inside or outside the body-brain ...)

***
I am sorry @Michael Zwingli, but at this point I have to leave the place because it got too late. I will try to continue my replying to you tomorrow.

No harm intended — Prishon

I'm very certain about this! :smile:

WhenI replied I saw too late that it was addressed Chesire. I thought it was about the trinity theory. Instead of triangles — Prishon

OK, we have resolved this.

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

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.
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! :smile:

Thank you for your response to the topic.
But I have first to "study" your long post before replying to you. :smile:
I will do that soon, after responding to a couple of other posts ...

I think I have... I mistook triangulation for trinity. — Prishon

OK, this explains it! :smile: (But still, it was addressed to @Cheshire! :grin:)

Has TFP lost control?
— Alkis Piskas
What do you mean by this? — Prishon

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.)
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.

If the brain isn't a person, then who is? — Luke

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.

Is this addressed to me? — Prishon

No, to @Cheshire. His name is mentioned in my comment ... Has TFP lost control?

The mind thinks. It's takes the reference points created during our evolution and triangulates ideas. I think philosophy is this process being carried out on the stage with many different reference points. A three point structure that can build on it's own dialog or self coherence can create intelligence. At least enough to dominate the game of GO. — Cheshire

This is not adressed to me but I take it as a response to the topic. So, thank you.

Re "The mind thinks": OK, but is the mind the brain or something else?

Re "triangular ideas", etc.: Can you give a practical example?

Basically you take brain state and do an expansion... — Mark Nyquist

I don't know or can understand what does this mean. Should I study monism or something?

Brain state = BRAIN(mental content) = BRAIN(specific mental content)
So I assume brain state includes thinking. — Mark Nyquist

So, you assume that based on a previous assumption (which you take as granted). Well, what can I say? Maybe I could say something if I had studied monism.

I also use the terms "dualism" and "monism" but as general concepts/terms that one can check in any philosophical dictionary. But just that. Then I always offer a personal description/view, usually with practical examples (applications in life) that everyone can undestand, which is the main thing and which do not require the study of these subjects.

To identify yourself as a Brainist or Non-brainist you should have already run through the question of what is thought and answered the question — Mark Nyquist

I think it was very clear from my description of the topic that I am a non-brainist. Not only my description was based on that element, but I also declared it explicitly towards the end: "So, my position is that thought is neither created by nor is taking place in the brain."
Anyway, you can find my whole answer at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700

It's widely believed that consciousness itself, that Holy Grail of science and philosophy, will soon be given a neural explanation.

You are the second to mention "consciousness". The third one would be myself when I will explain my position — Alkis Piskas

Well, I did that, but I finally have not included "consciousness" in my position, for not complicating things. Yet, I have included two quotations referring to Descartes, which mention consciousness. See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700

As for your position that thought isn't created in the brain, how do you explain the fact that injuries to the brain result in profound effects on thought? — Count Timothy von Icarus

See my answer at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700

Then it is incumbent on you to answer your own question. — Banno

See my answer at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700

I have ended my topic with the question: "What is thinking, how thought is created and where does it take place?".
The description of the topic was already quite loaded so I have not added my own answer to the question, which I do here:

Thinking is done by and in the mind. The mind is not the brain. The mind is a communication and control system between the spirit (soul) and its environment. In order to achieve this, it uses the brain. One way in which this is done is by thinking. Thought has no mass or energy --so it is not part of the physical universe-- but it can produce mass and energy. This mass and energy is transmitted as signals and/or waves to the brain. The brain then process them and according to their kind, it sends itself signals and/or waves through neurons to the remaining body or as feedback, back to the mind.

This is how the system mind-brain-body works in general. It is of course much more complicated than it sounds!

I give a simple example below. Before that, I have to clarify one thing: When I say "you" I mean YOU as a person (spirit, soul), yourself, YOU as an awareness unit, who can be aware of being aware. You can think of it simply as a point of view (not "viewpoint"), a point from which you can be aware, observe, communicate, etc.

You are looking around in a park and you put your attention on a tree. You observe that tree. In order to do that, you need to use your eyes. You do that via your brain (communication system). Automatically, an image is formed in your mind. This image is also automatically compared to other similar images of trees. If you have seen this kind of tree in the past and/or you have some knowledge about that tree, you will recognize it as something familiar. If you have never seen that tree, it will be added to your "group" of known trees. This is one way of how knowledge is created. The process that the mind used for comparison, etc. is thinking. It may be very simple, i.e. it may end just there and you continue your walk in the park. But it may develop to a more complicated process. Examples:

You might not be sure if you have seen or know that tree. You might start thinking "This tree reminds me of something", "Where have I seen this tree before? Think! Think!", etc. And then you start a whole process of trying to identify that tree ... And, if the tree were something more important, e.g. a person, it could even become on obsession and you get stuck with thinking about it, trying to remember where have you seen that person atc. We know that well!

Now, if the tree is very familiar to you, you might remember that you have fell from such a tree when you were young, and start feeling some fear or other unpleasant emotion, pictures coming to your mind, and so on. On the other hand, that tree might remind you of a romantic place, a time you were in love, etc. which will create pleasant emotions.

This what one of the things a thought (thinking) can do. It can create energy in the form of emotions (waves) that you can feel in your body. The more "negative" these emotions are, the more dense is the energy felt in the body. It can be so dense so as to create a mass: intense anxiety produces adrenaline.

On the contrary, the more "positive" emotions are, the more fine the energy is. When you are happy, you feel very "light", even as if you are "flying". Yet, this is still an energy.

These energies are created my thought, which is created in and by the mind, which is part of the spirit, not the brain.

***

This is how I view and can explain what thinking is, how it us created and works and where it takes place. But if you want a more "standard" view, I will refer you to Descartes' and dualism. I use him as a reference because he is well known in here. (I could use philosophers and philosophic systems that are much nearer to my views, but they belong to the Eastern philosophy, which does not belong in here, as I can see from my 2+ months experience with TPF.)

Note: I am not a follower of Descartes or cartesianism. This is only a second view, in which mind is separated from the body-brain. These are not my views, which I have already described.

I include below just a few of quotations regarding Descartes, which I find representative of the subject of "thought".

*********************************************************************************************************************

"Initially, Descartes arrives at only a single principle: thought exists. Thought cannot be separated from me, therefore, I exist (Meditations on First Philosophy). Most famously, this is known as cogito ergo sum, (I think, therefore I am)."
(https://grants.hhp.uh.edu/clayne/HistoryofMC/HistoryMC/DescartesI.htm)

"Descartes defines thought (cogitatio) as what happens in me such that I am immediately conscious of it, insofar as I am conscious of it."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes)

"And so something that I thought I was seeing with my eyes is grasped solely by the faculty of judgment which is in my mind."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes)

"Descartes tries to give a definition of thought in his Principles: By thought he means to refer to anything marked by awareness or consciousness. This does not just include reasoning or other such intellectual activities but also imagining, sensing, willing, believing, doubting, hoping, dreading, and all other mental operations."
(https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/principles/section3/)

Matter is much stranger than how it appears to common sense — Manuel

Can you please also bring in my quote that you are referring to? Thanks.
(Except of course if your commnet is not actually addressed to me.)

Thanks for your response.

Two points I think should be included. — NOS4A2

A lot more should be included! :grin:

We cannot separate the doer from the deed. ... Both the thinking being and that which is thought is the human organism — NOS4A2

I agree. I have read Nietzsche (extensively) quite a long time ago, so it is useless to consult my memory about him and his philosopy! But I remember well Krishnamurti's teaching: "The observer is the observed". Which I think is related to your "doer" and the "deed". But the "human organism" and the involvement of the brain in all this spoils things for me! :smile:

I don't waste time with random stuff pulled off of the internet – as you admitted "I made a small research in the Web" — 180 Proof

"Random stuff"? Is this what research means to you? You must better look up the word "research". Well, I will make it easier to you: Research is "creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research)

As I "admit"? Did I confess anything? (Admit means "Confess to be true or to be the case." (https://www.lexico.com/definition/admit)

In making philosophical discussions one must know well the meaning of the words one uses. This is only essential. Otherwise one's statements, questions, arguments etc., just fall apart.

I am not criticizing you. I only believe that you have to work a lot on your vocabulary if you want to make interesting philosophical discussions ...

:smile:

Science has not and cannot explain how they are produced and what is their source
— Alkis Piskas
Explain how you know this. — 180 Proof

As for "has not", I have already presented a documenation about what is generally known by Science on the subejct of thought. (So, if you have actually read the whole description of the topic, you shouldn't have asked this! :smile:)
As for "cannot", I assume that this refers to the future, in which Science documentedly (I have already presented something pertinent), it is because "thought" is evidently of non-physical nature and Science does not deal with non-physical things.

"voluntary thinking" is very much the exception to the rule of – just the rippling surface of the deep – involuntary thinking. — 180 Proof

OK, but have you thought involutarily of writing this and what exactly to write about? I certainly haven't! :smile:

That's because the detailed information is hard to get. The moment you try to get that detailed information you are interfering with that process you distort it, more or less — Prishon

Thank you for your response.

This reminds me of quantum phyiscs ... However, I don't think that the uncertainty principle is actually the problem. Moreover, as it refers to something totally physical, it excludes the possibility that thought (like consciousness) might be of a non-physical nature. And there are many reasons to believe that, since thought seems to elude Science, and it still is a terra incognita for it. Yet, it cannot see that because it deals only with the physical universe (matter and energy). And we are grateful for that! :smile:

Thank you for your response.

You might enjoy Alva Noë‘s book, Out of our Heads: Why You are Not your Brain. — Wayfarer

"You are not the brain" sounds quite familar. In fact, I was teaching that in a philosophical institute quite a long ago. I will found more about it, anyway. Although the important thing is that ... At last! A different view on the subject! Up to now, "Brainists" totally outnumber "Non-brainists". And I'm afraid this difference won't get smaller ...

You are the second to mention "consciousness". The third one would be myself when I will explain my position. :smile: Well, if I do, because I don't find it will be of any use. There's too much "brainism" in here. I have already brought in enough evidence and exhausted the reasons why thought cannot be or take place in the brain. Yet, it seems that it had absolutely no effect to "brainists", which totally outnumber "non-brainists".

I created this topic to see whether philosophical thinkers, like (most) TPFers, are "stuck" and obsessed (as you say) with the brain as almost everyone else in our culture. Indeed, Science --with all that it carries with and is implied by it: materialism, physicalism, monism, etc.-- is too strong, much stronger than "God". Well, I suspected the result, but I hoped it wouldn't be true. :sad:

(Who knows, there may be late responses that will change the scene ...)

Neuroscientists, for instance, routinely use 'probes' in specific sites of a human subject's neocortex in order to elicit or inhibit thoughts and feelings – e.g. false memories, phantom limb sensations, dissociated voices, ideational associations – from her brain. — 180 Proof

Thank you for your response.

Like the Phineas Cage case! Not much of a progress, is there? :smile:
But I don't have to tamper the brain to produce bodily resonses, emotions, etc. I can to that by hitting someone. (I wouldn't, actually! :smile:) But all these are reactions. In fact, bodily reactions. Science has not and cannot explain how they are produced and what is their source. Science (with capital "S") cannot see anything else than a body. It can't see the human being as a whole.