tomcat wrote:

zeenric2@gate.net wrote:

Do you believe that the part can be greater than the whole?

As to Hegel,  me think his think has long since gone!

you have any evidence that the mind ever survives brain death?

"dark matter" exists. It existence has been theorized.

In a nutshell--I believe that there is overwhelming evidence that mind
is the multi-faceted function of the brain. It can no more survive
destruction of the brain, than can digestion survive destruction of the
digestive tract!

Regards....Zinnic

You explicate the strictly 'scientific' view very well.  And, the
problem of Mind & Body is a difficult one.

First, let's look at the limitation of scientific method.  Science is
today is an adaptation of ancient Atomism.  The Atomists did, indeed,
find . . . atoms!  Most remarkable.
But Atomism never did take 'observation' or 'thinking' into account.
It was based on the posit that underneath our sense data or phenomena
were little atoms.
This is the limitation of scientific method.  A limitation despite the
fact that the scientific method requires the use of both 'observation'
and 'thinking'!
This does not interfere with the efficacy of Atomism, but when the
Atomists try to use the scientific method on 'things' that are not
strictly sense data, or phenomena, then they get into difficulty and --
error.

Why do you conflate  modern science, Ancient atomists and Russell
atomists?.

Second, the part may not be greater than the whole, but the part -- any
part -- is equal to the whole.  Every part is a window to the One.
Maybe this explains negative information, but that is another thread.

 In other words, if everything is tied together all you need is a
'loose

end'.
Scientists (Atomists) are discovering this as well as contemporary
philosophers.  I think philosophers became acutely aware of this with
language analysis . . . "words are slippery things" and all that.

Explain to a plain man how how a  means of access(window or door) is
equal to the 'ark of the covenant'.

Third, as far as Hegel's consciousness is concerned you are making an
unsupported statement:  "me think his think has long since gone."  This
is contemporary belief, not scientific fact.

Hegel does not possess 'contemporary' or any other belief. Others may
believe what he 'believed', but I insist "his think" has long since
ceased to exist!.

And, yes, there is some evidence that mind survives death, though I
will admit that it may not be conclusive and is fraught with
complication.  Certainly an area that needs more scientific work.
Under hypnosis (something not fully understood) people can speak
languages they have never been in contact with when they 'believe' or
are hypnotized 'into' another person in another time and place.  They
will remember things they could not, in their present life, have known.
 This is fact, even in the scientific sense.

You beg the question when you claim that "never been in contact
with...could not... have known" etc are facts. These claims are not
authenticated when subjected to scientific rigor..

Fourth, digestion and mind states are two very, very different things
Digestion is the swirling, mixing, and splitting of molecules.  Mind
states involve 'consciousness' and 'thinking'.  It does not even make
sense to talk about the swirling, mixing, and splitting of
'consciousness' or 'thinking' molecules.

Digestion and mind are two very different functions not static
'states'.
Molecular interaction is the basis of both functions. Swirling is
inapproriate for the description of mental function but 'mixing and
splitting'  of the molecules involved is entirely appropriate.

Fifth, you say that dark matter has been theorized.  It is necessary
for certain 'observed' sense data states.  Well, so is mind.
Sense data is active in that it is grouped and often moving.  This
'activity' is necessary for this grouping and motion.  'Activity' is
not, itself, a directly 'observed' sense data.  It takes more
'activity' to 'observe' it."

Meaningless! Grist for the garbage disosal unit!.

To sum up, science is powerful because it focuses, limits, it's view of
the world.  It focuses on . . . atoms.  This is a little like putting
on magnifying glasses.
But when things such as mind come up, then the glasses are 'out of
focus'.  Mind gets taken to mean brain which, by the way, is sharply in
focus.
Philosophy never put the glasses on.  So, everything is a little fuzzy
to them.  But philosophers can see mind and consciousness, while
scientists have difficulty.

"Science..focuses on...atoms"--Not
" MInd gets taken to mean brain"--Not
"..philosophers can see mind and consciousness,.."--NOT

"So everything is a little fuzzy to them [philosophers]"  Hmmm...so I
guess you must be a philosopher?