What is the primary function of the brain and nervous system?

[ruby sparks]

If we were to try to say what the brain does that other organs don't....how about 'command centre' (for various functions of the organism).

 

[Jokodo]

Well it is. You refuse to acknowledge that words derive their meaning through usage, instead insinuating that they have a fixed, god-given meaning you're uniquely privy to.

Well, there is your error straight off. I do not deny that words derive their meaning through usage. I am talking about precise definitions.

What I am saying is, according to the given definition of 'experience' an inanimate object does not experience damage, it sustains damage. A bridge, according to the given definition of 'experience' is incapable of experiencing anything.

Lol, you object to my characterization that you insinuate words have a fixed, given meaning and right in the next paragraph refer to the word's given definition not once but twice.

....regardless of how the word is used or the meaning it acquires through common usage, which of course everyone understands what is meant.

We all know what is meant when someone says ''the bridge experienced extensive damage'' - just as we all know that it dd not experience anything in the way that a person does.

It's a whole different meaning and application on the word.

Sure it is. You are the one claiming that the word only has one meaning and therefore, any usages not confirming to that meaning are "strictly speaking" incorrect.

By the way, is English usage incorrect in using "dog" for the species and "hound" for a specific breed? Or is German the German usage incorrect, where "Hund" is the species and "Dogge" a specific breed? Which one better reflects "the given definition" of those words?

 

[Jokodo]

A bridge, according to the given definition of 'experience' is incapable of experiencing anything.....regardless of how the word is used or the meaning it acquires through common usage

A definition by its nature can only apply to a particular meaning, not to a word in all its past, present and future incarnations. You seem to have this platonic idea where words exist independent of speakers. They don't. Words exist only in theminds of speakers as generalizations of The usages they've encountered. Sometimes, they don't precisely converge on the same meaning as their models had in mind, and if that happens enough, dictionaries not teflecting this become outdated.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Strictly speaking, a bridge doesn't experience anything at all, which makes it a figure of speech.

Both of the State facilities would experience structural damages and loss of land as the lake level rose.

The structure may experience structural damages or failure which may lead to either insurance claim.

Among these surviving buildings most of them experience structural damages.

Recently with a growing population and vast growing urbanization some buildings have started to experience structural damages.

Etc.

That's definitely not in dictionaries... But it's also a minority usage. All examples I found are from engineering or science workers.
EB

 

[Treedbear]

Sorry, we still don't agree. The word "reason" in the definition I gave implies an intelligent understanding of, rather than the creation of, one thing in relation to one or more other thngs.

The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists

There will be a reason that he came to Paris. For example that he wanted to see his sister. The reason was his. All reasons are somebody's reasons.

...

That what he says. But his sister knows the real reason was Suzon at the Folies-Bergère.

 

[DBT]

Strictly speaking, a bridge doesn't experience anything at all, which makes it a figure of speech.

Both of the State facilities would experience structural damages and loss of land as the lake level rose.

The structure may experience structural damages or failure which may lead to either insurance claim.

Among these surviving buildings most of them experience structural damages.

Recently with a growing population and vast growing urbanization some buildings have started to experience structural damages.

Etc.

That's definitely not in dictionaries... But it's also a minority usage. All examples I found are from engineering or science workers.
EB

I'm not disputing that the word is being used in that context. I am saying that used in that context the word is being asigned an entirely different meaning, transformed from it's standard meaning, something experienced, into damage sustained. Two entirely different things.

 

[DBT]

Lol, you object to my characterization that you insinuate words have a fixed, given meaning and right in the next paragraph refer to the word's given definition not once but twice.

....regardless of how the word is used or the meaning it acquires through common usage, which of course everyone understands what is meant.

We all know what is meant when someone says ''the bridge experienced extensive damage'' - just as we all know that it dd not experience anything in the way that a person does.

It's a whole different meaning and application on the word.

Sure it is. You are the one claiming that the word only has one meaning and therefore, any usages not confirming to that meaning are "strictly speaking" incorrect.

By the way, is English usage incorrect in using "dog" for the species and "hound" for a specific breed? Or is German the German usage incorrect, where "Hund" is the species and "Dogge" a specific breed? Which one better reflects "the given definition" of those words?

We all know about words with multiple meanings, we all know the meaning of a word is being determined by the context in which it is being used in any given instance.....just as we know that this allows some folks to fall into the fallacy of equivocation.

In other words....why raise the issue of bridges and entirely different applications of the word when the subject matter is mind and consciousness, where any experience must be conscious, and has no relationship to what happens to bridges.

 

[Kharakov]

Obfuscation of reality so that one can control reality without guilt?

 

[skepticalbip]

Lol, you object to my characterization that you insinuate words have a fixed, given meaning and right in the next paragraph refer to the word's given definition not once but twice.

....regardless of how the word is used or the meaning it acquires through common usage, which of course everyone understands what is meant.

We all know what is meant when someone says ''the bridge experienced extensive damage'' - just as we all know that it dd not experience anything in the way that a person does.

It's a whole different meaning and application on the word.

Sure it is. You are the one claiming that the word only has one meaning and therefore, any usages not confirming to that meaning are "strictly speaking" incorrect.

By the way, is English usage incorrect in using "dog" for the species and "hound" for a specific breed? Or is German the German usage incorrect, where "Hund" is the species and "Dogge" a specific breed? Which one better reflects "the given definition" of those words?

We all know about words with multiple meanings, we all know the meaning of a word is being determielned by the context in which it is being used in any given instance.....just as we know that this allows some folks to fall into the fallacy of equivocation.

In other words....why raise the issue of bridges and entirely different applications of the word when the subject matter is mind and consciousness, where any experience must be conscious, and has no relationship to what happens to bridges.

I think it is the human unconscious tendency toward animism that leads to such sloppy misuse of the language. Some will say that hot water cools because it wants to reach the same temperature as its environment, rocks sink because they seek the lowest potential, call ships she, etc. This, although others generally know what they mean, can lead to sloppy thinking such as someone getting mad at a hammer when they hit their thumb with it.

 

[DBT]

That's probably the case.

 

[Jokodo]

Lol, you object to my characterization that you insinuate words have a fixed, given meaning and right in the next paragraph refer to the word's given definition not once but twice.

....regardless of how the word is used or the meaning it acquires through common usage, which of course everyone understands what is meant.

We all know what is meant when someone says ''the bridge experienced extensive damage'' - just as we all know that it dd not experience anything in the way that a person does.

It's a whole different meaning and application on the word.

Sure it is. You are the one claiming that the word only has one meaning and therefore, any usages not confirming to that meaning are "strictly speaking" incorrect.

By the way, is English usage incorrect in using "dog" for the species and "hound" for a specific breed? Or is German the German usage incorrect, where "Hund" is the species and "Dogge" a specific breed? Which one better reflects "the given definition" of those words?

We all know about words with multiple meanings, we all know the meaning of a word is being determined by the context in which it is being used in any given instance.....just as we know that this allows some folks to fall into the fallacy of equivocation.

In other words....why raise the issue of bridges and entirely different applications of the word when the subject matter is mind and consciousness, where any experience must be conscious, and has no relationship to what happens to bridges.

The subject matter of my sentence was primarily limbs. The subject matter of the thread is nerves. Only in your mind are we in a discussion of mind and consciousness. If anyone's equivocating, it's you.

 

[DBT]

We all know about words with multiple meanings, we all know the meaning of a word is being determined by the context in which it is being used in any given instance.....just as we know that this allows some folks to fall into the fallacy of equivocation.

In other words....why raise the issue of bridges and entirely different applications of the word when the subject matter is mind and consciousness, where any experience must be conscious, and has no relationship to what happens to bridges.

The subject matter of my sentence was primarily limbs. The subject matter of the thread is nerves. Only in your mind are we in a discussion of mind and consciousness. If anyone's equivocating, it's you.

If you had understood what I said you'd know that whatever is felt to happen to our limbs, sensations, injury, disease, is the work of brain/mind/consciousness. Which was derailed by you and your bridges.

 

[Jokodo]

We all know about words with multiple meanings, we all know the meaning of a word is being determined by the context in which it is being used in any given instance.....just as we know that this allows some folks to fall into the fallacy of equivocation.

In other words....why raise the issue of bridges and entirely different applications of the word when the subject matter is mind and consciousness, where any experience must be conscious, and has no relationship to what happens to bridges.

The subject matter of my sentence was primarily limbs. The subject matter of the thread is nerves. Only in your mind are we in a discussion of mind and consciousness. If anyone's equivocating, it's you.

If you had understood what I said you'd know that whatever is felt to happen to our limbs, sensations, injury, disease, is the work of brain/mind/consciousness.

I knew that before.

It was a derail from my point.

 

[DBT]

If you had understood what I said you'd know that whatever is felt to happen to our limbs, sensations, injury, disease, is the work of brain/mind/consciousness.

I knew that before.

It was a derail from my point.

Not really. It was an addition to your point. You then misconstrued my remark...a trend that continued for a considerable time after.

 

[bilby]

The answer to the OP question is "To generate more nuanced responses to stimuli than are achieved by simple reflexes".

Whether consciousness is a tool used to achieve this, or a byproduct of it, is a totally different question.

I suspect that memory is an important brain function, allowing responses to be tailored to stimuli based on their effectiveness in previous encounters with that stimulus; And that consciousness is a mere artefact of the memory process - what we call consciousness is simply immediate term memory - the recall of what the brain just did.

But right now we don't have the neuroscience to test that either way.