[broscillator]

> If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body,

This seems backwards to me. It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain).

Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.

[fluoridation]

>It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain).

Processes are abstract concepts. They can't interact with concrete objects, except through the concrete objects that support them. Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain. If it can be said to "interact" with the brain, what's happening ultimately is the brain interacting with itself.

>Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.

Okay, now undo the analogy.

[broscillator]

Cars exist because the need for faster and better movement exists. The process of movement created the need for the invention of the car.

> Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain.

If we follow this logic then "movement is a process that's running on the car."

Cars are a result of multiple conditions, including movement and the necessary material conditions to employ movement in a specific way.

Consciousness is a result of multiple conditions, including mind and the necessary biological conditions to employ mental factors in a specific way.

[fluoridation]

Sorry, but I'm unclear on what your point is.

>Consciousness is a result of multiple conditions, including mind

What do you mean by consciousness that's different from the mind? I see the two as synonymous.

[broscillator]

You're fine to view it that way, it's a reasonable view. My point is to highlight that there's other views.

What I mean is that mind is to consciousness what matter is to the brain. It is a property of the universe, that manifests itself in ways that can form memories, identities, self awareness. But underlying these systems there is pure awareness, in the same way that all matter can be reduced to the same fundamental particles.

In the same way that something like a car or a brain can be made from these same fundamental building blocks, an identity and a self can be made from fundamental mind-properties that are just inherent parts of the universe. They become identifiable as "a person" at a certain scale in the same way that a group of particles becomes "a car" at a certain scale and distance.

[fluoridation]

So where are the mind particles? You know, physics and chemistry are quite solid fields. They can explain why cars work almost all the way down, including why only certain materials work for the engine block to why the fuel burns so energetically. If mind is a fundamental property of the universe it seems odd that we haven't been able to study it to the same level of effectiveness, and that it doesn't seem to appear anywhere in either physics or chemistry. There is no psychon, it would seem.

It also seems odd that a mind independent of a brain has never been observed. If minds are fundamental to the universe it's something that would have to happen. At the very least when a person dies their mind should be a physical process that's still detectable and goes on independent of the body, because it's fundamental to the universe and not reducible to interactions between ordinary matter particles; that's what it means for something to be fundamental or inherent. For all the world it seems as if a mind without a brain makes as much sense as a car without matter.

[broscillator]

Where are the gravity particles? Gravity is a fundamental process, yet the graviton remains hypothetical.

> It also seems odd that a mind independent of a brain has never been observed.

Has a mind dependent of a brain been observed? You can observe a brain, a body, a face, and hear speech, and you can take it upon faith that this is all guided by a mind, but you can't observe that mind unless it's your own. Same applies to your mention of the process of death.

Science is limited to phenomena that can be verified and measured objectively. So it is not odd that it would not be the right tool to examine something that is not entirely subject to matter. At most it can examine its interaction with matter, but to draw conclusive theories from that will carry on to those theories the limitations fundamental to science, and you will confuse those limitations with truth about nature.

The way to observe this is direct experience, but the issue there is that conceptualization and intellect get in the way, because what you know and assume about the world will bias direct observation.