and, in my way of describing the situation:
when a person goest to sleep, his brain does not cease functioning but his mind does

it is possible that sleep can include states where there is only a decrease in mind function rather than a total cessation, as is the case during dreaming

they are called 'brain processes'

I think unconscious mind functions occur all during the sleep period, dreaming or not.

we're basically discussing a functional distinction (or the lack thereof) between brain activity and consciousness. Rick is assuming a trivial relationship between brain activity and 'mind', while I am arguing that 'mind' is a perceptual/qualitative structure. The reason I find this distinction important is that it does not allow one to take the activities of physical structure to be trivially identical to the experience of qualitative structure, an assumption that is often made these days by AI folks.

The next time I pray...will I need to say: "Our Rick who art in heaven..."?
BTW, there is a teaching in AA which says that it does not matter what one calls The Higher Power...one can even call it a doorknob. "Our Rick..." is better than, "Our doorknob..."

If we go with your definition, then Freud's term "unconscious mind" is meaningless.

I don't think I ever stated that I think the the relationship between consciousness (what you may prefer to call, perhaps, "mentation") and brain activity is trivial. I am certainly not an identicalist as you imply. I strongly disagree with those proponents of the identity of brain activity and consciousness. That I understand some things about AI is merely coincidental.

is this a bad thing?

you have appeared to me to argue from the position that brain activity implies the existence of some form of 'mind' ('conscious' or 'unconscious' mind). From a third-person perspective, this can be a valid notion but only means that we, the observers, are conceptualizing a 'mind' in association with what is observed as ordered brain activity. I am trying to distinguish between what an external observer imagines and what is the internal state of the brain. To me, a 'mind' implies a qualitative structure in subjective space. My 'mind' is my experience, and any other mind must be so experienced by the subject that owns it. A 'mind' without a subject to experience it is nonsense to me.

Then what are we to make of Jung's "collective unconscious?" To me, unconscious mind is an abstraction (a model, not of brain, but of the brain's function, mind). This abstraction allows us to make explanations of mentation (meaning of dreams, inclinations, habits, etc.) and to make predictions of behavior (will the marriage last, will the student get good grades, etc.).

Brain activity implying mentation or ideation (another term for thought) is not the same as asserting its identity with those things.

Clearly there is a causal relation from brain activity to thought, and vice versa. If a physician gives you an anaesthetic dose, I guarantee your consciousness will become diminished. If you are feeling mentally fatigued, there are certain ways of thinking (mental techniques) that can give you a boost.

So now you are talking about three distinct things: brain, mind, and subject. Can you better describe the latter? I suspect it may not really exist, except as illusion.

who experiences the illusion?

If there was no 'subjectivity', there would not be anybody to experience any illusion. If an illusion is experienced, then there is a 'subject' of that experience. How is this hard to understand?

how about avoiding obvious nonsense?

This statement is creating an illusory dilemma between 'one' and 'I'. A proper way to phrase the question is:
one still has not defined what one is

subject demonstrates

if any demonstration has happened, subject exists

'experience' implies subject. To deny this is illogical

You are basing an argument on the structure of language. You assume the language is perfect in that it describes the situation perfectly, that language is able to describe the situation, and that the language is complete in that there is no superseding way to say it.

I say experience can exist without any additional objects to receive it, that the reception is inherent in the event.

Dan writes. To which Rick responds: "likewise."

Interestingly, I note that there are over 1550 clicks on this post. I wonder what this means? And, how come there are so few who drop in and say, "Hi!"

Hang on, this definition is beliefist! The Greek Gods I believe in ( ) have a hierarchy, with Zeus being a more senior God than say, Apollo. I'm going to recommend Safari to Zeus for a job as God of the Browsers!

Anyway, why were people convinced into believing that the multi-God religions were wrong and that monotheism is right? (Noting, of course:

Hinduism is both a monotheistic and a henotheistic religion. Hindus believe in one supreme God who created the universe and who is worshipped as Light, Love and Consciousness. Hindus were never polytheistic, but were always henotheistic. Henotheism is defined by Webster's as "the belief in or worship of one God without denying the existence of others." - a 'just in case' scenario!

EARTHIST!!!

EARTH - the medium from which that beautiful rose grows.