The Mind-Brain Problem and the Obstinance of Matterless Motion

PSI Blog 20220613 The Mind-Brain Problem and the Obstinance of Matterless Motion


Abhi writes:


“When you define existence as the xyz portion of the universe occupied by a microcosm after its formation via submicrocosmic convergence and before its destruction via submicrocosmic divergence, I think that you are confusing the meaning of existence with the meaning of tangibility. Tangibility is one type of existence because anything which occupies any xyz portion of the universe indeed can be touched. But tangibility is not the only type of existence. For example, when a person or animal is alive, it is possible to touch the body of that person or animal, but impossible to touch the mind of that person or animal. But this does not mean that when the person or animal is alive, the mind of that person or animal does not exist. This means that the mind of a person or animal is always intangible irrespective of whether the tangible body of that person or animal is alive or dead. When that tangible body of that person or animal dies, the intangible mind of that person or animal becomes the soul of that person or animal.”


[GB: Thanks, Abhi for bringing to our attention another somewhat subtle and very popular connection between science and religion. Philosophers have argued about the “mind-brain problem" for centuries. At the Progressive Science Institute, we solved that one 40 years ago with the Fourth Assumption of Science, inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion).[1] Like so many other religiously tainted debates, this one becomes moot when we realize the brain is XYZ matter and the mind is the motion within the brain. What you propose is matterless motion, which by the way, is still popular among regressive physicists. That is, after all, what Einstein meant when he claimed gravitational and magnetic fields to be “immaterial.” It was what he meant when he claimed light to be a matterless particle nonetheless capable of motion.


Your deduction from mind to soul fits with millennia of religious dreams and imagining. It fits with the spirits, ghosts, and gods who likewise are imagined to be matterless motion. It is not based on science, but on the Fourth Assumption of Religion, separability (Motion can occur without matter and matter can exist without motion).[2] Having been religious for almost 20 years, I can sympathize a little bit with your reassuring frame of mind here. You are not the only one who would like to live forever, even if only as a bit of matterless motion. Unfortunately, that will never occur for you or me or anyone else. Your instincts are right: You love this life so much that you do not want it to end. Good thing the universe is infinite and real and not the product of anyone's imagination. There is no end to the discoveries you can make in the meantime.]








[1] Borchardt, Glenn, 2004, The Ten Assumptions of Science: Toward a new scientific worldview: Lincoln, NE, iUniverse, 125 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/TTAOS].


[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [ https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk ]



Westmiller said...

Usually, I agree with everything you say. In this case, I also agree, but ...
I think you can address "life after death" issues with conversion and diversion themes. For example, I've lived 75 years, thinking and acting in a way that is beneficial or detrimental to thousands of people's lives (particularly, my wife, three daughters, and six grandchildren). If I have particularly rational and productive ideas, the motion in my brain will affect others for thousands of years. When I die, that will be the end of all my acts, but not the end of all the effects I've created during my life. In that sense, every person has a different "afterlife", lasting minutes or millenia, for good or ill, depending on their actions during their own life.

Just a thought.

Glenn Borchardt said...


Great comment! I agree totally. I suspect that is why we write papers and books and blogs. I know the colleagues that have passed on live in my memory. I often read their words and it as if they were speaking directly to me. This goes for Newton and all the other greats that have influenced me. Even the ones who were grossly wrong (like Uncle Albert) presented me with examples of what not to emulate.