quote: Also I've tried to make it clear that I'm not arguing at this point for physical separation of mind and brain, all I'm arguing is that they are entirely different things though intimately connected
"Asserting" would be more accurate than "arguing" at this point.
But no, they clearly aren't completely different things. The brain is too deeply involved in the mind for them to even be considered separate things.
Common sense says that if the mind needs the brain for things like memory - and the others mentioned - then it really does need them. The functions wouldn't be magically restored by "taking the mind out of the body". Whatever that could mean in practice.
Common sense, then, says that you can't take an actual mind out of the brain. The most you could do is copy a mind into something else that could perform the same functions. But that would be making a new copy, not taking the existing mind away.
quote: Nobody is taking the mind out of the body nor trying to say the mind doesn't need the brain. That is not my argument. I mention from time to time that I believe such a separation is possible and definitely will occur at death but that is based on the Bible and I'm not trying to prove it, at least not in my most recent posts.
Did you even notice that contradiction between not saying it and "mentioning" it ?
quote: I'm objecting to the idea that mind IS somehow brain, is somehow material just because of the necessary connection, or that the brain is prior to mind or creates mind. It is always a part of mind's working, its learning, its doings of all kinds, but it isn't the initiator. You all make brain the primary thing and that's what I'm arguing with.
More accurately pretty much everyone else is pointing out that the mind can't be disentangled from the brain. That at the least the brain contains important components of the mind. And that's the view that you are attacking with your assertions that the mind is somehow the driver of the brain - which requires that they be considered separate to a degree that runs into serious problems with the evidence.
quote: Brain is the engine, brain can't think a thought it just does physical things, like my car does when I drive it. It doesn't know where to go, I drive it there.
Well, there's a nice bald unsupported assertion for you, sheer assumption.
quote: When I think, such as when I think what to write here, I am the one thinking, my brain isn't doing the thinking, I am or my mind is, my mind is initiating the thoughts that are conveyed here, not my brain.
Of course you're just assuming that the thinking isn't brain activity. You don't know and you have no way of knowing. Introspection doesn't reveal any boundary between mind and brain.
quote: ...but the thoughts are the primary thing and the originating thing, and that is so obvious it shouldn't even have to be said.
In fact the Libet experiments call even that into question.
But setting that aside, all you have is an assumption that thoughts aren't products of the brain. Which isn't obvious at all.
quote: I believe the relation of mind to brain is that the mind is the driver and the brain the machine, and that this is a matter we know from observation and experience.
I think that your repeated failure to offer any such observations or experience is a pretty clear indication that you know it isn't true. In reality we have no experiences of a separate mind "driving" the brain at all.
quote: The problem with the materialist view is that it ignores the amazing originality and individuality of mind.
And that isn't true either. Adopting an explanation that you dislike or incredulously reject in no way devalues the thing being explained.
If we really knew something through observation and experience you could point to observations and experience that confirmed it. That you continually evade the issue is proof that you're being less than honest,
And really it's obvious that your dislike of materialist explanations doesn't mean that the materialists are devaluing anything. In fact, if the materialist explanation is correct you are the one devaluing the brain by refusing to accept that it could be as marvellous as it is.
I am asking you to support a claim which on the face of it is clearly false. We do not directly observe how the mind is produced nor do we understand how it is produced. We have no everyday observations or experience which could tell us whether the mind is the product of the brain or not. Again, if you want to honestly disagree it IS incumbent on you to produce actual observations and experiences which support your assertion. Resorting to angry bluster to evade the issue (again) only shows that - at the least - you DON'T know of any.
And you certainly haven't posted to such experiences "many times" in this thread. Again if you want to disagree it's pretty easy to link to the messsages in question.