I did express my view that thinking is done by the whole person. I very much doubt that a brain in a vat (i.e. a brain not attached to a body) would be doing any interesting thinking.
In has been determined recently that memories, imagining, and contemplation has more to do with the sequence of synaptic firing than the firing themselves.
But which causes which? Is the thought initiated by the brain? Or is the brain responding to a request?
That’s very plausible. All our senses come from a perspective of our heads, so it seems as though the mind is in the head. But that’s not necessarily true.
There are multiple regions of the physical brain that act, with no discernible activity to account for the connection/communication between the active lobes. Genesis says life is in the blood. Blood is the one element that connects all the various regions.
The mind could very well be us in our entirety.
That makes sense. That’s how the mind seems to work. Like links in a chain. Associations that link one to another.
But when the firing sequences stop, there is no thoughts, no memories. All gone.
Right, and when your keyboard stops, there’s no words. Doesn’t mean you’re not still there. You just lost the ability to communicate.
1 Like
Your citation only refers to memory and sleep, and mice. Do you have something to support imagining and contemplation, ideation? (I am skeptical that mice engage in that. 
)
You have yet to present evidence that the mind is independent of the brain, so my position is empirically based.
If I pour alcohol on the keyboard it doesn’t change your mind, now does it? Drugs and physical injury change the mind.
For your position to be empirically based you would have to have empirical evidence that supports it.
My position is that I have yet to see evidence for the mind being independent of the brain. Therefore, I see no reason to accept the claim.
1 Like
Would that make you a chemically deterministic automaton?
If the mind is the brain, which I don’t believe in an absolute sense, this would be the case. However, I don’t see how this is a problem. A complex automaton will have complex behavior and thoughts. Perhaps a good analogy is Earth’s weather. I think we would all agree that it is a physical automaton, being guided by starting conditions and the environment. However, weather patterns are impossible to predict long term and are quite complex. I think it is also worth mentioning that humans are also predictable. We tend to have the same innate reaction to similar stimuli. We are all fooled by the same visual illusions. The field of psychology is able to generalize the nature of the human mind, and even treat the mind using drugs and other treatments.
Not a good analogy in that case. The brain/body can be altered chemically. A keyboard cannot.
Neither of us have empirical evidence to support our views one way or the other. Therefore our agreement to disagree is a difference in belief.
The entire point is that a shot of vodka does alter the brain/body, and it alters the mind in the process.
In my case, it is a lack of belief.
The weather does not have free will (although some think it spiteful. )
Why not? Would you elaborate?
Human free will is also a hotly debated topic. It isn’t clear if we have free will. When you touch something hot you instinctively pull your hand away without thinking about it. Does that violate free will? How would we know if we had free will or simply a complex set of deterministic brain pathways that simply look like free will?
As @Jeremy_Christian correctly states, there isn’t absolute proof one way or another.