[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.

[fluoridation]

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

Gravity can be detected by its effects, even if there's no particle that propagates it. We've been able to detect not just the strength of gravity (by weight) but also its propagation through space (see LIGO).

>Has a mind dependent of a brain been observed?

Um, obviously? What distinguishes a person from a braindead patient is that one of the two has a mind. Are you saying that the fact that you talk to a person and have them recall facts is not enough to say that they have a mind? Also, to say that a mind has never been observed either dependent or independent of a brain would mean that the idea of mind has no basis in reality at all.

>At most it can examine its interaction with matter

Well, ultimately yes, because any instrument we are able to construct will necessarily have to be made of matter. The upside of this is that if there's a phenomenon that does not interact with matter in any way whatsover, even indirectly, then that phenomenon cannot possibly have any relevance to human life. If minds are an inherent physical phenomenon that can interact with brains, then we should be able to construct a device that's able to interact with them. If this is not possible even in principle, then I don't see how minds can be said to be fundamental. What aspect of reality informs that belief of yours?

[broscillator]

> Um, obviously? What distinguishes a person from a braindead patient is that one of the two has a mind. Are you saying that the fact that you talk to a person and have them recall facts is not enough to say that they have a mind? Also, to say that a mind has never been observed either dependent or independent of a brain would mean that the idea of mind has no basis in reality at all.

You're observing communication, which like the gravity example, is one effect that's discernible and understandable to us. Much like the effects of gravity could be observed by people of the past but without sufficient measurements and tools, they did not attribute the orbit of the planets and what glues us to the earth as the same principle.

> The upside of this is that if there's a phenomenon that does not interact with matter in any way whatsover, even indirectly, then that phenomenon cannot possibly have any relevance to human life.

First, whether it has relevance to human life had nothing to do with something being true or not. Secondly, clearly mind does interact with matter, it does so through the brain. We can already construct devices that interact with mind, by making babies.

But we cannot construct devices that can peer into your mind and perceive experience in the way that you do. You might theorize that we should or that science will, someday, but this is a promise not unlike religious ones.

> What aspect of reality informs that belief of yours?

The most fundamental aspect of reality is that which perceives reality in the first place, aka. your experience. Without this awareness, there is no perception, no memory, no intellect. Without these, there is nothing to construct and hold the theory of how mind came to be out of matter.

Fundamentally, I can posit that it is all a dream, the matrix, plato's cave, etc, but whether the contents of experience are illusory or not, it can't be denied that there is the fact of experiencing taking place.

The scientific fundamentals are posited on the premise of "if we didn't exist, what would we agree on is true about the universe". And that's a valid endeavor, but it rests on a hypothetical because we do exist as sentient beings.