Robin, you composed some sentences for examination. Let's look at them and re-write some of them for clarity, shall we? 1. "This book was written with deep thoughts and philosophical considerations. 2. "Your thinking on this subject is rather unusual." 3. "It does not require much thought to fix (or solve) this problem." A. Could you tell me which word is correct of sentences above. (Much of the phrasing is awkward. I rewrote the sentences for clarity.---BB) B. If referring to intellect, do brain equal mind in meaning? [ No, as my explanation of the Mind/Body or Mind/Matter, or Mind/Brain shows--BB] Does "thoughts" mean "thinking" or "ideas"? [Yes. Thoughts, Concepts, Ideas etc., are equivalent or synonymous.--BB]

The Skeptical philosopher David Hume established for mankind, the general principle that is still adhered to overwhelmingly by most people today. That principle is designated HUME's GUILLOTINE or HUME's FORK. It informs us that we cannot derive (get) an OUGHT from an IS. An IS, equates to any sort of fact. So Hume's Guillotine informs us that we cannot suppose that we "ought not" or "should not" do anything on the basis of any specific fact. The mere fact that in nature, I would have the capacity to kill another living creature, cannot be interpreted as some sort of rule that "ought not" or "should not" kill another living creature, including other members of my own species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens. This is, as other scientists and philosophers tell us, why we refer to Nature as Nonmoral. Nature, is not a "moral" place. In Nature, anything can be done, and is done. This is why, if a Shark eats a fish or a mammal such as a Seal, we do not say that the Shark has broken a "law" and committed a "crime" or an "abuse" or a violation of a "right". Nature, is Nonmoral. It is only in the experience of people that Abstract Concepts such as Legal actions and Illegal actions pertain. For conclusion therefore, the Mind/Body Problem continues to be very much a part of mankind's exploration of thought and his knowledge.

(continued) That is why, historically, mankind has generally found that Mind/Body Dualism has the greater explanatory power as a worldview. Mind/Body Dualism informs us that Abstract Concepts do exist, an that it does explain things in human experience. If we do not acknowledge this, then we will be forced to dismiss as false, all of our traditional conceptions of Good & Evil, but also all conceptions of Law, such as Legal and Illegal. The reason is that in nature, Science does not conclude that Force and Violence constitute any activity that is Illegal. Science informs mankind that human beings are, in the final analysis, merely an animal, a Primate termed "Homo Sapiens Sapiens". Animals, science informs us, do not do anything "wrong". All activities associated with Force and Violence are permissible for Animals. .

(continued) What are the difficulties caused by the misunderstandings of the difference between Mind and Brain? The difficulties created by the conflict between the competing worldviews of a Monism and a Dualism are that Monists typically claim that only Science is credible for human knowledge. Thus, adopting the worldview termed "Ontological Naturalism" they claim that only Matter, Energy, Space and Time exist, and only those things researched by Science can be regarded as that which exists. That eliminates many identities that people in all cultures and countries throughout history have regarded as real. For example, if philosophical Monisms, such as Ontological Naturalism is true, then it is false that any Abstract Conception such as Good & Evil, or Rights and Abuses exist. All of human Law and Morality would have to be entirely discredited as meaningful, because none of these Abstract Conceptions are logically consistent with the Scientific Theory of Natural Selection and the Scientific Theory of Evolution. Also, "Ontological Naturalism" must be examined in the very real possibility that it is a Self-Refuting worldview; because Mathematics and its Numbers have Abstract Conceptions (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 0) for its basis. If these do not exist therefore, their logical relations are to be dismissed, and they are deemed the basis of all Science, then Science itself must be discredited.

(continued) How then, do MIND and BRAIN become confused in the thinking of modern people? The reason, I propose, comes from the many popular books written to give "psychological" explanations. Many of such books will carry the title "Mind". Therefore, they attract much interest for people curious for knowledge. People want to have "reality" or what is "real" explained to them. So they begin reading this books. After a few paragraphs however, a strange thing occurs. The author uses a cunning technique termed "The-----Bait----And----Switch". It occurs when the author claims "Mind" for his subject, but suddenly begins substituting the term "Brain" for "Mind". Logically, this is termed the common logical error designated as The Fallacy of Equivocation. In Logic, one does not suddenly switch one critical term for another; but modern authors of "psychology" books employ this tactical all of the time. One reason may be that Science has collected more knowledge about Brain because Brain is physical and can be Scientifically Measured. Mind however, is invisible, and does not consist of Matter, and can only be examined by "thought" itself.