A doctor might check brain memory by asking a person to repeat 'banana, phone, door'. — Mark Nyquist

Does this mean that you have in mind some kind of memory other than "brain memory"?

Then, isn't this too mechanical and extremely simplistic an experiment to describe thought in general, esp. higher-level thinking (imagination, computing, problem solving, reasoning, etc.?
As the information I brought in as part of the description of the topic as well as I mentioned realier in this thread, this is as far as Science can go with the connection of thought to the brain.

If you can remember you birthday doesn't that confirm the information or thought is contained in your physical brain? — Mark Nyquist

Thank you for your response.

Remembering a birthday, and where an information is containded refers to memory. So this would be another topic. e.g. "Where is memory located?". But, even if remembering involves some thinking, it is still a different subject.

My brain must be involved somehow and I think it is the best candidate to say that thought takes place in my brain. — Manuel

Thank you for your response.

Thinking for a "best candidate" is how, as I said, scientists most probably think about thought (as well as consciousnes, etc.): "Where else can it be located?" But 1) this is not a scientific answer and 2) material (matter/energy) is something that can be directly observed, measured, detailed, experimented on, etc., so if thought is totally material, how comes then that they have so liitle data on it, and only on a body level?

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

Thank you for your response.

You are right about my not answering the question. But, as I already replied on this:

I couldn't explain my position as part of the topic. It is already quite loaded! I created the topic so that different view points are presented. And of course, I cannot explain my position on an individual basis, for everyone who asks. So, at some point, depending on how this discussion is evolved, I will add a short note at the end of my description of the topic and refer to it everyone who wants to know. So, I will let you know if and when this will be done! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

And if not in the brain, how do you explain the range of observations you so curtly dismiss? — Banno

I have already indicated these "observations" are on a totally phisical (bodily) level. They consist actually of reactions, reflexes, behavioral changes, etc. All these belong to a low-level human mind functions. The higher-level functions (thinking, imagination, computing, problem solving, reasoning, etc. are very far away from what Science can explain. Besides, it is not me or anyone else who "dismiss" observations, etc. This is documentation on the subject. That is why I made all this effort to collect it and posted in my topic! If you have not actually read it, please do. It will answer your question.

Nice intro and good question — Pop

Thank you. :smile:

That a brain and senses are a crucial element of this is without question, but they are not the source of "thinking". The source of "thinking" is consciousness — Pop

I am very glad to read this quite original (for me) view on the subject!
Very interesting, really! :up:

Thinking (occasionally) happens; "who one is" is a thought entertained recursively and then (mis)attributed ex post facto as the "cause" of thinking. It seems, however, a category error to assume "thinking happens somewhere" (which is like assuming "light comes from / goes somewhere when switched on / off "). — 180 Proof

Thank you for your response.

Just a note: I have changed the word "who" to "what" as more approriate. (I used word "who" by bias and habit.)

Re "thinking happening": It can, but that would refer to "reactive", involuntary, thinking. As e.g. thoughts produced by the subconsious, emotions, etc. These thoughts always exist and are happening, since the subconscious is always at work.

But there is also a voluntary, analytical thinking. The function and process human beings use to analyze. compute and solve problems, to reason. This discussion, for instance, although it includes some involuntary thoughts (They always exist!) This doesn't just happen. It is created, controlled and directed by us. Isn't that right?

Really interesting topic — dimosthenis9

Thanks. I was expecting someone to say that! :smile:
(Although I believe that it must be interesting for most of us in here ...)

To me it seems like the hardware-software case. I don't think thought can exist without brain. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I know. This subject has come up during our long discussion in another Topic, I think yours!

What always troubled me is how all this invisible world (thoughts, ideas, feelings etc) and whatever is going on in unconscious mind are stored inside the brain? — dimosthenis9

Right! Isn't this something that indicates the existence of something else gets into play. I call "all this invisible world" higher-level human mind functions. Science (with capital "S"), still after all these years of brain studies, cannot handle them. The reason is evident: they are not material.

Could ever be possible that this "place", where all these information exist, to be some kind form of energy ? — dimosthenis9

Still of material nature. If it were enery, they would have found about it and explained, with their MRI and other instruments ... As it seems, it is not energy either. At least, not the kind of energy we know.

It's just a desperate attempt my mind to wrap around these questions. — dimosthenis9

I think that Science is as much "desperate" as you. The difference is that you can admit it, whereas Science cannot! It cannot admit that there's such a huge void in this area and "lose face", after all these discoveries and developents trhough the ages! So, it just makes a note that "thought" --as other highr-level functions-- is part of the brain. No proofs. (Other than changes in the human behavior because of brain injuries.)

t's probably better to think of what is doing the thinking — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thank you for your response.
Yes, I know, I thought about this later and I corrected it. In fact my choice of the word "who" was biased, it has to do with my personal view, which of course I have not included in here.

When Descartes went to "I think, therefore I am," he is perhaps making a bit too much of a leap with the "I" part of the claim (this was a critique of Hume's). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I can't remember Hume's position on this subject (I have read his philosophy too long ago), but Descartes indeed did a big leap with his dualistic system (I wouldn't say "too much" though) and think our civilization in the West was lucky to have him! But this was expected and it would have happened anyway, esp. as West were meeting East ...

...people with split brains, brains that have had the major connections between the two hemispheres of the brain severed, experiences a lot of abnormal cognitive issues. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You talk about very low --actually bodily-- human cognitive functions. I have already mentioned the classic case of Phineas Gage. But this is too far away from major cognitive processes of a human being. (Even from the behaviour highly intelligent animals exhibit.)

However, when testing voluntary movement, research finds that the begining of a voluntary motion begins before a person experiences the sense of deciding to move ... This is common to all movement, but blindsight provides another good example. ... etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Likewise. All these are basically bodily functions. Human thinking is very far away from all that.

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

I couldn't explain my position as part of the topic. It is already quite loaded! :smile: I created the topic so that different view points are presented. And of course, I cannot explain my position on an individual basis, for everyone who asks. So, at some point, depending on how this discussion is evolved, I will add a short note at the end of my description of the topic and refer to it everyone who wants to know. So, I will let you know if and when this will be done! :smile:

If I understand your comment correctly, (1) you see no "usefulness in trying to explain Socrates' statement" and (2) you don't think it "can be used as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion". — Apollodorus

Correct.

One more reason why Socrates wouldn't have ever said something like that is that his arguments were always very clear and his critical thinking almost impeccable.

Personally, I am not trying to explain Socrates' statement as I believe that it is not meant literally (as stated in the OP), and I never use it as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion. But others may do so, hence it can be discussed by those who take an interest in the topic. — Apollodorus

OK, I got that. And you are right. Things have to be put in the right perspective.

I mentioned two references from known and standard souces. I also added that this is too old and we can never really know if it has been said or not. This does not mean however that we have to dispute everything that prominent people have said.

This is technically a shorter paraphrasing of Socrates' statement, "I neither know nor think I know"

I have read that too, of course. But it clearly says that this is a paraphrasing. Which is one more indication that Socrates never said "I know that I know nothing". Can't you see it?

Of course it is entirely possible that Socrates and Plato never existed and never said anything. — Apollodorus

This is totally ιrrelevant with the case in hand. I hope you can realize this too, on a second thought.

However, as far as I am aware, this is not disputed by historians or scholars. — Apollodorus

It has never been proved that it has been said either. But I also talked about that too: "... found it in some ancient tablet or papyrus".

Finally, I ended my comment with something that was more essential than the truth about the quote itself. But you ignored it.

After all this, I suspect that you heve not actually read my comment. Because what I can see here is just a reaction to the idea that this special paradox-like statement-quote might have never been said. That's all.

Anyway, thanks for repsonding to my comment as the originator of the topic.

"'I know that I know nothing' is a saying derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. It is also called the Socratic paradox. The phrase is not one that Socrates himself is ever recorded as saying."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_that_I_know_nothing

"Socrates never said this. This quote is never attributed to Socrates in any ancient sources. In fact, this quote actually comes from a source about as far from Socrates as you can possibly get; it originated in the United States in the late nineteenth century as an aphorism among evangelical Protestants."
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/07/16/fake-and-misattributed-ancient-quotes/

There are a lot of references in which this is claimed. But see, this statement-quote is supposed to be said 2,500 ago! Even if it has been actually said (e.g. we have found it in some ancient tablet or papyrus), we can't know really in which context and conditions it was said. Data from various references differ a lot between them.

However, besides all this, we must ask ourselves: "Is there some usefulness in trying to explaining this paradox-like, apparently incomprehensible statement-quote?", "Can it be used as an argument (reasoning) in a discussion or for explaining anything?" I, personally, can't find anything.

Hi!
I have responded to your topic --you asked "What are your thoughts?"-- but I I have not received a response from you ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/583919

The reality of you thinking about a tree — Prishon

What kind and who's reality this is?

The minds eye view (including whatever ordening is involved) is the same as the view when looking. — Prishon

Re "the view when looking": What kind of view this is? A view mainly means the ability to and action of seeing something from a certain point (both literally and figuratively). It may also mean a sight.

That tree has a physical, matter-like existence. This matter is not present when you think. — Prishon

Present to/for whom? And why is it not present? It it is me, do you mean that I'm lost in my thoughts or anyway, my thoughts kind of block out my sight of the tree? (Most probably not, but what else?)
When I observe a tree, it is implied that this tree is present (for me, not someone else) at that exact moment. Otherwise, how could I observed it? If I only think of it, it means that I am not observing it, and I can do that even if the tree is not present (for me) at that moment.

Otherwise, you cannot say that something is "present" in general. Something is "present" if someone observes it. There must be a point of view for something to be considered "present". You can't say, e.g. that the tree you saw sometime ago is still present (exists at that location) at this moment if you don't see it. It may well have been cut out in the meantime!

But whats the Nature of matter? Isnt it possible that it contains some "magical" "stuff"? — Prishon

You lost me there! :smile:

Why cant they exist in the outside? Cant mental states and physical states coexist? — Prishon

Do you ask it the reality that I have in my mind about a tree I am just observing also exists as such in the physical universe? How can that be? One is mental and the other is physical. What I have in mind is a representation of the tree. What exists in the physical universe is the tree itself.
Or maybe you mean something else?

By mediation maybe of the body? Is there an independent physical pulling through our mental states? If so then say a true material circle form pulls through our mental image of it cant we connect it with other physical circels, or otber forms, to create a new physical reality which wasn't present before our thinking? — Prishon

I can't get any of this ... Try maybe to create and post here a drawing that shows all that ...

I wouldnt be me without a but; they even call me the but — Prishon

"But" is good! It is actually essential in philosophical discussions! :smile:

For two different people there can be two different physical realities. — Prishon

Exactly. Yes, "physical realities". But always individual realities, i.e., they exist in the mind of the individuals, not outside (in the physical universe).

Whats the real thing? — Prishon

What do you mean by the "real thing"?

Both at the same time? — Prishon

Yes, if you talk about realities, mental worlds. You and me can think of the same thing or have the same reality about something at the same time.
As for quantum physics (physical universe), where a particle can be at two places or two different forms (matter and energy) at the same time, well this is something I am not qualified to talk about! :smile:

What are the objections against the view that a lot of different realities can co-exist? — Prishon

By "realities", do you maybe mean "physical universes" (worlds)? Because "realities" refer (among other things) to people's view of the physical universe. Each human being has its own reality. And all these realities coexist and are different. If we agree on something, then we have a common reality. But conflicting or just different realities also coexist. Only that when there is agreement, what happens is that realities become stronger, to a point that they may be confused with the physical universe! For example, all the people on earth agree about the existence of the sun. And because this was happening since the beginning of the human history, the sun appears still more "real" to people and its existence becomes something like an objective, absolute reality for everyone. Yet, the reality around it has changed through time. It was once thought that sun turned around the Earth, since Earth was the center of the Universe! If science were not created, we might still believe that! That is, that would be our reality. (Most probably, tribes today who still have this reality. And they, as ourselves in the past, have all the reasons in the world to believe that ...Even today, we can get the illusion that the sun moves around the earth: "The sun rises and sets", "the sun is up in sky", ... are everyday common phrases!

So, a lot of people talk about an absolute, objective, universal reality. There's no such a thing. I have given a lot of reasons why this is so and explained why, quite a few times. See e.g. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/578622.

Especially in the science driven global culture of today there seems to be a lot of resistence. That is at least what I experience. — Prishon

The science did a lot of good to us by explaining and describing the physical universe so that we could get out of total ignorance and superstitions!
Anyway, again, I believe you mean resistance about coexisting physical universes (not realities), right? Well, isn't that the subject of "Parallel Universes?" :smile:

Could you stop wasting everybody's time please? — Daemon

I agree. Please do.

That is for ANALOG Computing (an acronym for Atari Newsletter And Lots Of Games) . :D
Atari is a company name. — Corvus

Please make an effort to actually read the reference (i.e. more than its sub-reference) at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer again. Then try not to laugh ironically, but when something is actually funny.

Here. I make it easier for you:

Analog computer
For the Atari 8-bit computer magazine, see ANALOG Computing.

An analog computer or analogue computer is a type of computer that uses the continuously variable aspects of physical phenomena such as electrical, mechanical, or hydraulic quantities to model the problem being solved. In contrast, digital computers represent varying quantities symbolically and by discrete values of both time and amplitude.

Analog computers can have a very wide range of complexity. Slide rules and nomograms are the simplest, while naval gunfire control computers and large hybrid digital/analog computers were among the most complicated. Systems for process control and protective relays used analog computation to perform control and protective functions.

Analog computers were widely used in scientific and industrial applications even after the advent of digital computers, because at the time they were typically much faster, but they started to become obsolete as early as the 1950s and 1960s, although they remained in use in some specific applications, such as aircraft flight simulators, the flight computer in aircraft, and for teaching control systems in universities. More complex applications, such as aircraft flight simulators and synthetic-aperture radar, remained the domain of analog computing (and hybrid computing) well into the 1980s, since digital computers were insufficient for the task.

And analogue computers? That is just another contradictory concept which not makes sense. — Corvus

The existence of analogue computers is already established a few times in this thread! This is one more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer

Yes, we can say that.

Atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Agnosticism
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God — Deus

It is very good that you brought up definitions of both. Few do, even if the terms in most of the topics shout for their (own) definitions! :smile:

Now, let's see ... The atheist simply does not believe in (the existence of) God (or a "god"). This is quite justified and logical, since its existence has not been proved, or at least, not in a commonly acceptable way. On the other hand, the agnostic holds that nothing is known --this is too evident!-- or can be known about the existence of God. See, he also adds the impossibility to ever know anything about God. So, in a way he does rule out his existence, contrary to what you state. And with this, he also gets into a logical trap: you cannot claim that nothing can be known about something that is not known!

So, I personally like an atheist, more than an agnostic! :smile:

That helps indeed! Thanks! It looks indeed as that whats going on in the brain. Artificial neural networks are pretty good in "recognizing" patterns. I think you can see why. The networks are too straight in my vision (contrary to the lightning shaped real neurons). Im not sure if there is a digital program lying under ANNs. — Prishon

I am glad I have inspire you! :smile: And I see that you are knowledgable in the AI field!
However, although there is some parallel between ANNs and the brain, we must not forget that neurons are analogue --they operate on a continuum of signals-- whereas computers (AI) work on a 0-1 basis. This, and also the computing abilities of the second make their comparison impossible. We can only talk figuratively: The previous image of a neural network is no more than what in programming we call control flow, just a representation, a rough description of a process or program, which I am sure you know well.

The definition of an analogue computer is not a device that actually computes (t — Prishon

OK, maybe you mean this:"An analog computer or analogue computer is a type of computer that uses the continuously variable aspects of physical phenomena such as electrical, mechanical, or hydraulic quantities to model the problem being solved. In contrast, digital computers represent varying quantities symbolically and by discrete values of both time and amplitude." (Wikipedia)

If this is so, then I have wrongly interpreted your subject. My bad! See, we often are biased by the things we know best or words/terms that are more commonly in use, and in this case it is "digital computers". Digital computers --or just "computers"-- are so much involved in our lives that they almost hide any chance that there's some other kind of computer! At least, this is what happene to me. I'm sorry.

Bad luck again, though! I am not good in and know very little about mechanics, in general, so I can't help here either (as I couldn't with neurons)! So, there's a chance that the brain works in somehow a similar was with analogue computers as defined above.

But wait a min! There's a branch in artificial intelligence called "Neural Networks". There may be some similarity between them, which refer to a digital world, and the brain. This is again from Wikipedia:

"A neural network is a network or circuit of neurons, or in a modern sense, an artificial neural network, composed of artificial neurons or nodes. Thus a neural network is either a biological neural network, made up of biological neurons, or an artificial neural network, for solving artificial intelligence (AI) problems. The connections of the biological neuron are modeled in artificial neural networks as weights between nodes. A positive weight reflects an excitatory connection, while negative values mean inhibitory connections. All inputs are modified by a weight and summed. This activity is referred to as a linear combination."


Simplified view of a feedforward artificial neural network

I don't know if this can help. But it is the least I can do for misinterpreting your "analogue computer"!

I can really not say anytthing more about neurons than what I have already said.

There is no memory like in computers (which is one of the reasons I consider the brain as an analogue computer — Prishon

OK, but as we have already established there's no analogue computer. So any comparison with human memory falls apart, doesn't it?

... although litterally computation doesnt take place — Prishon

Isn't this one more reason for not comparing the mind with a computer?

What a difference with Philosophy Stack Exchange! — Prishon

I don't know about that, never subsribed to it, but I have been to a couple of other philosophical forums and they suck big time! I can openly say that TPF is best by far!

All of them can be present ina part of your brain too — Prishon

It's time for me to mention that all this stuff with memory, neurons, cells, etc. is kind of "floating on the air". There's still no definite proof that memory is part of the brain. (I say "still", because scientists continue to change each now and then both the actual location of the memory and its functioning. I watch this serial since the early 70s ...) Much less has been proven that thinking and consciousness are products of the brain, as most scientists still believe (mainly because they can't figure out, as pure materialists, where else these could be!) That's why, I believe it is safer if you use the word "mind" instead of "brain" (both for those who identify it with "brain" and the other, like myself, who believe that these are two different things). And certainly avoid talking about "neurons"! I certainly don't know how exactly they function, but I know that they work for receiving and transmitting signals. And this is more or less what the brain does. There may be also some kind of "memory", which has to do exclusively with the body and which is located in cells other than neurons or other specific parts of the brain, but I cannot tell. I was never much interested to find out!

f you consider computers to be built because we wanna store information yes — Prishon

Actually, computers are created for computations (as the word itself implies). The first computers had a very small memory capacity. You were using them exclusively for solving problems, demonstrations and that sort of things. (I had worked with one such computer!)

I couldnt remember anymore what the topic wss. I havent looked yet but I guess it to be information. — Prishon

Exactly! It's what I mentioned at the end of my previous message! :grin:
(The topic was --and still is-- "Can we see the brain as an analogue computer?") It is good to write it down each now and then in these long discussions so that we get aware that the wind has made the sailing boat drift away from its course! However, uncotrolled (unmonitored) discussions like these offer for opening new, interesting and juicy subjects! And fun too! :grin:)

Potentially, you can remember the sequence — Prishon

Yes, I got that you are talking theoretically (because this is what "potentially" implies). That's why I gave you a practical example, one that can be applied to life.

Besides, since you refer to potentiality, whatever physical information a human being can receive from the environment can be stored either on a huge computer disk (... "potentially"! :smile:) or --more realistically-- distributed to smaller ones. But even a relatively small disk can already contain mush more than what a human being can remember.
Only intangible, non-physical, things (feelings, emotions, abstract ideas etc.) cannot be stored as such, i.e. exactly how they are felt or thought of by the human being, but this refers to a spiritual reality, out of the present frame of reference.

In general, whenever you are talking about data (information), you must remember that this is the realm and "the reason of existence" of the computers! This is why we have built them. We wouldn't had to, if we could do all the computations and rebember everything ourselves ...

Ther is, however, something else that I thought just a little while ago: There's a belief that a person's memory actually contains everything that it has been registered into it and that it's only the recollection of the information that is at fault or deficient. Yet, certainly this is theoretical, as it has never been proven and, most importantly, even if it had, it would have some use only if we were able to develop reliable and efficient memory-recovering techniques, something like hypnosis, but more scientific and reliable.

Well, we have gone astray of the topic, the subject of which is proven (at least by me) to be baseless, anyway! :smile:

You can think of every process in the universe. The memory capacity of brain is larger than that all computers together. — Prishon

What kind of "process"? Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I am talking from a practical point of view. I will give you a very simple example.

Just write a totally random (i.e not structured or formed in any way) 16-digit number, as quick as possible --no extra processing, no mnemonics or other tricks-- in a text processor, save and close the file. Then try to remember it. Most probably you can't. (Except maybe if you are a mnemonist! :smile:) Then open the file with the written number. There it is! Instantly!

You can think now how impotent your memory capacity and retrieval process are compared to those of a computer!

Computers are idiot savants. — Bitter Crank

Don't be so ready to belittle them! Computers can do a million things better and faster than us! :smile:
Besides, they are extensions of our mind. In fact, where would were be today w/o them?
(BTW, you are "talking" to a computer programmer, who refuses to work with idiots! :grin:)

Another huge thing the partisans of "brain as computer" do not account for ... — Bitter Crank

Just forget about them ... They certainly don't know what a computer and/or the brain are/is, and certainly they ignore the mind. Because, if you can compare computers with something human, that would be the mind, not the brain. Totally different things! (But this another story ...)

I have a short theory of consciousness (https://www.iamdamir.com/what-is-consciousness). — Pop

Are you Damir Ivancevic? :smile:
Anyway, I will read it, because consciousness is always a hot subject! And I'll come back to you ...

I think computers own their AI mainly on speed. The neuron firings in the brain cant compete with the computerclocktime. Nevertheless the processes are much more complicated. — Prishon

Re "AI": Yes, speed and also storage capacity (e.g. big data). Human memory capacity looks tiny compared to it! And, although thinking works at the speed of light (maybe faster) retrieval from memory takes "eons" compared to that using AI techniques.

Re "neuron firings": They must also be quite fast, but I guess thought (as a thinking process) is much faster and, of course, much more complicated. Although brain waves can be traced and measured, I don't think that thought (will ever) can.

:smile:

Which is not to say that some analogue to outside processes can be found — Prishon

Certainly.

I once saw the squares of a chess board litteraly light up on neural structures. There are almost infinite patterns to be made on the neural network. — Prishon

Interesting! Neural networking is also a hot subject in artificial intelligence!
As for chess, although computers (chess programs) can beat good chess players --IBM's Deep Blue chess-playing computer has even won the world champion Garry Kasparov about 30 years ago!-- lack an important thing the human brain (actually, "mind") has: imagination!

According to Julian Baggini morals are to do with morale — Fine Doubter

I am afraid that you are trying to justify your mistake, making it much bigger than what it was, instead of just accepting the --again, minor-- correction I did. (Indeed, it looks like just a typo.)

Douglas R. Hofstadter sees the brain as a computer. — Prishon

Good for him! :smile:
First of all, computers work on a digital basis. The brain, on the other hand, is neither analog nor digital. It works using signal processing. It receives and transmits signals.

The computer consists of digital circuits, which are used to create combinational logic and perform functions based on boolean logic. Does anything of this remind of the brain? :smile:

Sorry, but the comparison is totally unsuccessful. :sad:

ΟΚ

It is the belief of phenomenology, and the philosophical zombie argument. — Pop

Thanks, but I would prefer your opinion, what do you think/believe and why.

Any brand wants you to be as dependent on that brand as possible and therefore has an interest in its subscribers not developing — praxis

This is true for some coersive, suppressing institutions that try to prevent people's self-development, independent thought etc. Medicine is a typical example, as you said. Church too. But you cannot generalize it and apply it to all the groups ("brands as you call them) on earth!

Zen is a good example of what I mean because it's regarded as an austere tradition that focuses on training (meditation) and experiential intuition. Some people don't even consider it a religion. — praxis

Who says that Zen is a religion? It is a school of Mahayana Buddhism. I personally consider it a practical religious philosophy, as most of the Buddhist schools.

If this were really true then why isn't the training better than it typically is? — praxis

What do you mean by "better than it typically is" mean? What does "typically" represend and Where does it result from? Have you been trained in Zen quite a lot and are not satisfied with the results? And what about million people who live on Zen principles and are practicing it?

I'm currently working through a book on Zen training called Hidden Zen, by Meido Moore. — praxis

Reading a book about a subject is great but one cannot expect or even "see" results if this subject involves training, and particularly an intensive and long one. In this case, one has to find out what other people who have obtained results say about them.