dog doesnt see a bird — Miller

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

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

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

bodies cant exist without minds — Miller

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

That's why conscious machines are impossible to construct.

Yeah, I think you are right here. Scientific knowledge is often presented in better shape than it actually is, especially complicated stuff like you refer to. Evolution dealt with organisms once. After DNA was isolated and examined, the story of evolution was projected onto genes. Leading to a picture of a battle between the strands (of DNA), to which organisms are attached like puppets on a string. I once saw an image like, an artist's impression, accompanying an article on evolution; and I wondered if the artist took this view seriously or if he was criticizing it. DNA even got turned into a selfish macro molecule. And you already mentioned cricket and alcoholism. Features like intelligence, nastiness, criminality, love, you name it, are projected on it without a further thought given.
The truth is though that this just can't be done. There simply are no selfish and dumb genes with a criminal attitude.
It are the streamlined versions of theories that reach the public. Maybe this gives rise to scientism whose proponents can torment and torture the ideas even further to fit their scheme, I don't know. I'm not a "scientismist(ator?)".

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

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

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

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

If you removed that defining feature, the larger context, how would you know which side of your body is right and which is left? — Metaphysician Undercover

Precisely. There is a difference though in spatial directions.

So right and left only have meaning in a larger context. If you removed that defining feature, the larger context, how would you know which side of your body is right and which is left? — Metaphysician Undercover

How can you define left and right without to referring to spatial arrangements in the first place?

But Fox gets few CNN viewers and CNN gets few Fox viewers — SophistiCat

Then why are they still, sometimes rabidly (Fox excells), ridiculing each other? To drive away the few still looking? What then will be left to do if no one they ridicule is looking anymore? What use is ridiculing if there is no one left to ridicule? Are they ridiculing people for their own clans? To give them a mouthpiece to be heard all over the world? What if no one in the world listens to the ridicule anymore? Will we be left with two clans ridiculing each other without a trace of real contact left? Which a fine condition for inhumane action to follow, as the action will be directed against an imaginary entity nowhere to be met in reality. The people against whom action is taken are very real though.

Is there anything to this approach, other than just advertising? My question for you... — jasonm

There are, amongst others, two mutually invertible paths to advocate. You can present a pimped-up version of what or who you advocate for, or paint an exaggerated picture of what you consider bad qualities of the subject you advocate against.

You can show the glorious burger. Like the nazis showed the glorious image of "the Arian". You can also show the image of the not so glorious burger of McShitty. Like the nazis showed the distorted images of the Jew", thereby implicitly communicating that they are truly existing persons or burgers.

As you have found out, and could have known, the perfect burger is far from the truth. Which is the case with all "the" subjects advocated for or against by demeanor.

Advocating by demeanor is mainly directed to "the" competing subject. Leaving out specifics of what you advocate for. It exacerbates inexorably the opposing subject by using the same tricks as used on the glorifying path.

So basically the two paths lie on the same side of a two-lane highway. The two lanes on the other side are occupied by the opponents or challengers competing with you.

The scary part is that the pictures presented in both kinds of propaganda are taken for real. The realities presented are assumed to be walking around in the jungle of life, be they burgers, people, or ideas. Thereby creating fear, aversion, or immoderate admiration without measure, which can result in correspondingly action.

Now in the case with burgers this is usually no problem. I think most people know that the burger to be expected will not have its sesame seeds as perfect in place as in the commercial, and they probably know too that McShitty's burger is not as bad as the flattened burger you found in your bag. I think that not much action is undertaken to get rid of a certain kind of burger, though I'm sure both McDonalds and McShitty want to put poison in each other's burgers.

It's getting problematic if one considers people and ideas. In this realm actions are taken almost routinely because of their very nature. People and ideas can oppose your own. Instead of taking the challenge of real people and real ideas, it is much easier to paint a charicature of them and corresponding actions to get rid of them.

But really, the question is what do you consider to count as science? — Tom Storm

Why is this the question? The question is if it's a bad thing to be against it. If you are a scientist then the answer seems obvious: yes. You would be guilty of treason if you said "no".
The more important question is: Should it constitutionally and institutionally be made a measure for all of us?

The problem is not science, it is the abuse of scientific knowledge, among other things. But scientism probably exacerbates anti science because it blurs the distinction between science and non science. — EnPassant

"Scientism is the view that science is the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. While the term was originally defined to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist", some religious scholars (and subsequently many others) adopted it as a pejorative with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philos"

What's the difference with what our scientists think? Don't most scientists think so too? Isn't this even put in practice in modern society?

[

You actually mirror the vector in a mirror, like a straight arrow. In curved spacetime the vector becomes an object with variable length..You inverse one of the components, in a suitable base. Sometimes front to back, when the mirror is perpendicular to the arrow, sometimes, the length direction, when the mirror is parallel. The velocity vector stays the same, so vXB doesn't change if you turn B around (which is a reflection). — AgentTangarine

Here you are blatantly wrong.