Andrew108 wrote: I think that this mental consciousness isn't that different from the other senses. Just higher order.
So, you are saying that an eye doesn't "know" there is a flower in front of it, but the brain "knows". But nothing has ever been demonstrated to show this. Maybe we are talking about two different meanings to the term "knowing".
If you say it is 100% the purely "mechanical" activity of the brain, and there is no other awareness
of that activity,
then what you are saying is that the physical brain alone creates its owner, the one who says "my brain".
Andrew108 wrote:Well mechanical activity seems to suggest simplicity. It's far from simple.
That's why I put the term in quotes. I didn't mean it was a mechanical thing literally. The point I was making was that given that the brain is made of things such as water, salts and acids, in that respect it is no different from a machine that is made of metal or plastic, because: none of the component parts, separately or together, can be shown to actually engage in cognition. They can only be shown to create the conditions
for neuor-chemical events which can be experienced
as cognition. You are saying that neurochmical events, by themselves are
cognition. i am saying that they are not by themselves cognition, because none of them has the ability to experience what is taking place.
Compare the brain to a car battery, which also functions because of the interactions of water, acids and minerals. The battery provides the conditions for electricity to occur, but it does not use
the electricity itself.
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tell me, does your brain know it's a brain?
Andrew108 wrote:The brain can't perceive itself because the senses are directed outward. ....these days we can use deductive logic and neuroimaging that allow our brain know that it is a brain and not something else.
If , though various secondary means, the brain
can know it is a brain and not something else, then there is no "our" brain, no "my" brain, no "your" brain ...
You are saying then, that a person does not have a brain...it is the other way around...the brain has a person.
That's very interesting!
You are still asserting that the physical brain itself "knows".
That essentially means that it if you think you
are a sentient being, that this is incorrect.
Rather, the brain itself
is the sentient being.
So, you can't say "my brain" because there is no you
, which of course fits in very nicely with Buddhist teachings that there is nothing that can be called "me' or "mine" (but it isn't an exact fit).
Does the skull, which holds the brain, thus belong to the brain?
Then, by extension, wouldn't the whole body actually belong to the brain?
or does the brain produce the user of the brain (the person the brain imagines you to be)
...who then in turn owns the body which holds the brain?
. . .