Every one except perhaps, the pantheists. They believe that everything is god. All the stars, the moon, trees, flowers, turds. All that shit!

But we do have reason to believe that consciousness can't exist without material.

Glad to know we're in agreement now.

But why did you argue otherwise?

And yet, have you ever had a thought cross your mind?
You observe it appear, you study it, you weigh it, you consider alternatives...but if the mind is the brain, who's doing the observing?  Thought is just one more kind of experience YOU have.

I didn't argue otherwise.  I argued that our reasons for believing it are based on scientific observation and theory, not on logic per se.

Thank you.  You've nicely illustrated the point:  regardless of whether mind and brain are factually distinct, they are conceptually distinct.

I can call him if you would like.  What would you like to know?

I seem to have consciousness, but it could be an illusion.  I'm not the first to suspect that.  As for consciousness in anyone or anything else, it's dubious.  All I can see is what others do.  It's an unwarranted conclusion for me to say that you or anyone else has consciousness.  You, for example, whom I only know via the internet, could be a computer program.  The people I see walking around could be automatons, fleshy machines.  There is no proof or even evidence that they have consciousness.

Brain is a body organ. A thought is a product of the brain. Mind is the content produced by the brain.

I define consciousness as the ability to tell the difference between a rock and your  own ass. I'm pretty sure you can do that. Any organism that can distinguish itsef from the environment displays consciousness, self-awareness. There are even non-plant, non-animal, non-living systems that are self-regulating. I would throw some of those into the consciousness bag too.

Consciousness without existence? No. Consciousness is awareness of own existence, how can anything that doesn't exist be aware of it's own existence?

Duncan Hall wrote:
Most creation myths begin with a pre-established realm where their God existed. Even Christianity doesn't really explain what created the divine world. There were already beings other than God flying around in "Heaven", and they don't tell you how they got there. When it says God created the "Heaven and Earth", it's talking about the sky and the ground, not "Heaven" as in where you go when you die. Doesn't make it anymore sensible, but I'm just saying.

That the problem when you try to rationalize the irrational.

Prove it.

SK, this thread is about reasonable, rational debate.

To participate, you have to venture out from the comfort of your faith/mythology/mysticism.

In all human experience, the only home we know for perception and consciousness is in the brain, which is a material element that exists.

It you wish to argue that consciousness can exist in some other way the burden of proof is on you.

Prove it!

Perhaps you missed the part where I divided thoughts as being separate from the observer.

We know the brain as the home for perception and consciousness...why?

Because we have a massive bundle of sense organs nearby?

It is a fact that thought can affect the physical structure of the brain.
CBT can physically change the brains of depression patients and confirmed with brain imaging technology.

What if "we", the observer, actually exist somewhere else? Perhaps as pure thought.
And that what we are actually doing is connecting into these human brains, and using them as...a kind of video game controller.

Then it would be your turn to prove it.

If that were the case, then traumatic brain injury or tumors should not alter the personality or thought process of those injured.  We know that is not the case and that brain injury can affect personality, moral judgement, and thought process.

Next.

No next at all.

You've never had a malfunctioning keyboard, or game controller that altered play of the game?

"In the brain injury world, there are taboo subjects that family caregivers can't wait to talk about among ourselves. The dark side of personality change is at the top of the list."

Exactly so. They're all physical interrelated components. What they are and can do is set within those physical parameters.

Broken controller may alter how you play the game - but not the game itself.  For your analogy to work, the faulty controller would have to alter the programming of the game.

Next.

Yes.
Except that all that changes is your experience playing the game using them.

Remove one part of a persons brain, they continue to be who they are.
Remove another, and they change.
Remove another, and they die.

None of these prove that the person/program has been altered, merely the game unit.

The keyboard breaks, and the game goes wonky.

A subarachnoid hemorrhage happens, and now the calm, serene person is subject to fits of rage and depression.

Both defined by and subject to their physical workings.

All that is evidence that the "mind" (personality, perception, abstraction) is interwoven into the physical workings of the body's cells and processes.

If you have evidence of mental capacity, "mind," without a body attached, please advance it.

If the "essence" of a person - your "pure thought" - were separate from the brain, then trauma to the brain should not cause a person to suddenly lose prohibitions against physical violence.  A frontal lobotomy should have no affect on aggressive personalities.  We know those statements are false.  Damage can affect the basic programming - that would not happen if the program is being run from a off location source.

Your assertion does not conform to known facts.

Please explain trauma related amnesia if the memories and thoughts of a person are located in "the cloud".

First you have to prove your assertion that "then trauma to the brain should not cause a person to suddenly lose prohibitions against physical violence.  A frontal lobotomy should have no affect on aggressive personalities."

Why would that have to be the case?

Because it happens.  If your theory were correct, damage to the brain WOULD NEVER result in personality changes, loss of memory, or mood as all that information would be stored, "somewhere else", not in the damaged brain.

Senility, Alzheimers ... couldn't happen if we follow your hypothesis.

You say that, but you don't say why?

If the mind, the soul, the chi, the ka, the katra, the luminous being, were a unit independent from the organic processes of the brain, then that life-force, that entity, would not be affected in its processes.

If you're saying that the basic personality is independent from the body but the brain simply supplies the organic tool to allow it to interact with the world, then please demonstrate evidence for this independent personality.

And assuming that for sake of argument, since all we know of each other is what's portrayed through this organic tool of a brain, please explain what the real personality is like, since we have no way of knowing, only being able to see what's filtered through the brain.

Because physical deterioration would have no effect on a non-physical "self".  But we know that is not true.