Smarter than your brain?

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Vikrant C
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: May 2nd, 2015, 10:41 pm

Smarter than your brain?

Post by Vikrant C »

Left to its own devices, your brain knows zero about neurons; it has no idea from where the thoughts come. Because the brain knows nothing about itself, neuroscience began by assuming that the brain is the only privileged object in the known universe that is conscious. This assumption is almost never questioned by any neuroscientist because the everyday work in that field consists of tinkering with the brain's biology. All higher questions about mind, psychology, religion, morals, aesthetics, and metaphysics are reduced to biology.

Yet in assuming that the "brain" is a privileged object, neuroscience contradicts itself. Objects are things; things have working parts; the working parts, when fully understood, define the thing you are studying and want to understand. But there is nothing privileged about the brain's working parts. Its basic chemicals are the same as in the rest of the body. The glucose on which neurons feed isn't smarter than the glucose coursing through the bloodstream everywhere else. Nor is there a point, biologically speaking, where you can say, "Here is where all of this physical stuff learned to think."

The brain's inability to understand the brain is a profound dilemma that isn't solved through biology.

But neuroscientists insist that biology holds the key to everything about the mind. In fact, most of them firmly believe that Brain = Mind. The promise that brain biology is sufficient to explain the mind, morality, religion, metaphysics, thinking, feeling, creativity, and so on is empty.

So how can we become smarter than our brains? If biology is a dead end, what path to understanding will get past biology? The first step is to acknowledge that the brain isn't a privileged object. It isn't the source of the mind any more than a radio is the source of Mozart and Beethoven. The brain, like a radio, is a receiver. The reason the brain doesn't know that it is a receiver--aside from the fact that it doesn't know anything about itself--is that it is too involved in the reception. When thoughts, feelings, sensations, and images fill our minds, we are creatures of experience, enveloped by those experiences.

The second step is to clearly define the question: "How do we know what we know?" The only viable way to begin to find the correct answers is to concede something very basic: All knowledge comes from experience, and all experience is in consciousness. Neuroscience resists such an answer because it goes beyond biology, yet the subject of the brain always did go beyond biology, into philosophy, psychology, and metaphysics. Trying to fence the mind inside the confines of the brain's apparatus was never valid to begin with. The problem of the mind is a human problem, not a neuroscience problem.

All knowledge comes from experience and all experience is in consciousness. Thoughts, memories and our experience of a universe in space-time are all conscious phenomena. If you agree on this, then to truly understand the mind, you must abandon the brain entirely from its privileged position, demoting it to the lump of atoms and molecules that it actually is.

You have now freed the mind from any dependence whatsoever on the brain. Mozart lived before the radio and didn't depend upon it to create music. The mind existed before the brain and isn't dependent upon it to create thoughts. Explaining the mind without the brain is unthinkable in the present context of scientists--but it will happen.

Overall, the main idea for me is that - our body is a tool to gain experience from the surrounding i.e. infinity so we can move toward infinity, the vastness of knowledge.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by Burning ghost »

Show me someone consciousness without a brain and I'll start to take you seriously.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Vikrant C
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: May 2nd, 2015, 10:41 pm

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by Vikrant C »

I believe there already lots of small size organism as their body movement doesn't control or coordinate with the "Brain".
They are conscious because "They are alive", "They take food and perform function", "They move".
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7940
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by LuckyR »

Vikrant C wrote:Left to its own devices, your brain knows zero about neurons; it has no idea from where the thoughts come. Because the brain knows nothing about itself, neuroscience began by assuming that the brain is the only privileged object in the known universe that is conscious. This assumption is almost never questioned by any neuroscientist because the everyday work in that field consists of tinkering with the brain's biology. All higher questions about mind, psychology, religion, morals, aesthetics, and metaphysics are reduced to biology.

Yet in assuming that the "brain" is a privileged object, neuroscience contradicts itself. Objects are things; things have working parts; the working parts, when fully understood, define the thing you are studying and want to understand. But there is nothing privileged about the brain's working parts. Its basic chemicals are the same as in the rest of the body. The glucose on which neurons feed isn't smarter than the glucose coursing through the bloodstream everywhere else. Nor is there a point, biologically speaking, where you can say, "Here is where all of this physical stuff learned to think."

The brain's inability to understand the brain is a profound dilemma that isn't solved through biology.

But neuroscientists insist that biology holds the key to everything about the mind. In fact, most of them firmly believe that Brain = Mind. The promise that brain biology is sufficient to explain the mind, morality, religion, metaphysics, thinking, feeling, creativity, and so on is empty.

So how can we become smarter than our brains? If biology is a dead end, what path to understanding will get past biology? The first step is to acknowledge that the brain isn't a privileged object. It isn't the source of the mind any more than a radio is the source of Mozart and Beethoven. The brain, like a radio, is a receiver. The reason the brain doesn't know that it is a receiver--aside from the fact that it doesn't know anything about itself--is that it is too involved in the reception. When thoughts, feelings, sensations, and images fill our minds, we are creatures of experience, enveloped by those experiences.

The second step is to clearly define the question: "How do we know what we know?" The only viable way to begin to find the correct answers is to concede something very basic: All knowledge comes from experience, and all experience is in consciousness. Neuroscience resists such an answer because it goes beyond biology, yet the subject of the brain always did go beyond biology, into philosophy, psychology, and metaphysics. Trying to fence the mind inside the confines of the brain's apparatus was never valid to begin with. The problem of the mind is a human problem, not a neuroscience problem.

All knowledge comes from experience and all experience is in consciousness. Thoughts, memories and our experience of a universe in space-time are all conscious phenomena. If you agree on this, then to truly understand the mind, you must abandon the brain entirely from its privileged position, demoting it to the lump of atoms and molecules that it actually is.

You have now freed the mind from any dependence whatsoever on the brain. Mozart lived before the radio and didn't depend upon it to create music. The mind existed before the brain and isn't dependent upon it to create thoughts. Explaining the mind without the brain is unthinkable in the present context of scientists--but it will happen.

Overall, the main idea for me is that - our body is a tool to gain experience from the surrounding i.e. infinity so we can move toward infinity, the vastness of knowledge.
An opinion unencumbered by data.
"As usual... it depends."
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by Gertie »

Vikrant, we don't understand (yet at least) the relationship between the brain and mind, but we do know there is a correlation between brain states and mental states. Neuroscience follows the evidence, you've just made stuff up about the brain being a receiver and mind existing independently of brains. Anybody can just make stuff up like that.
User avatar
ExodusMe
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: January 30th, 2017, 1:16 pm

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by ExodusMe »

Burning ghost wrote:Show me someone consciousness without a brain and I'll start to take you seriously.
God is commonly thought of as having an 'immaterial mind' that is conscious and does not have a physical brain. Just FYI.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by Atreyu »

I basically agree with your post, at least the general point that it's important to differentiate between "the brain" and "the mind". Yes, they are two quite distinct things, but there does seem to be a strong relationship between the brain and what we ordinarily call our "minds".

The brain is the physical object that resides in your skull, while the mind is our thoughts as we experience them. No doubt that our subjective experience of thinking is strongly related to the physical brain, but obviously there is a lot more to it than that. Other aspects of our physiology also affect our thoughts, not just the neurological system.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by Sy Borg »

Burning ghost wrote:Show me someone consciousness without a brain and I'll start to take you seriously.
A paramecium is a microbe that swims around and finds food, finds a mate, has sex and can learn. It is a single-celled organism, with no synapses, neurons or brain. Yet it performs functions that require awareness, even if not as sophisticated as chordates.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by Steve3007 »

OP:
But neuroscientists insist that biology holds the key to everything about the mind. In fact, most of them firmly believe that Brain = Mind. The promise that brain biology is sufficient to explain the mind, morality, religion, metaphysics, thinking, feeling, creativity, and so on is empty.
It is perfectly possible to believe that biology holds the key to everything about the mind while also holding the view that the mind is not the brain. The usual analogy that people use is between hardware and software. Software does not exist as something separate from hardware. But software is not hardware.

A more troubling question: If biology does indeed hold the key to everything about the mind and if biology is entirely describable by discoverable natural laws of the underlying physics and chemistry, then our thoughts must, in principle, be entirely describable by those laws. But that includes the thoughts which discovered the laws which describe the thoughts. So, much like the time-travel paradox inherent in the way that the Terminator robot was invented in Terminators 1 and 2, the thoughts and the laws, which both govern them were discovered by them, are part of an arbitrary closed loop.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by Sy Borg »

Steve3007 wrote:OP:
But neuroscientists insist that biology holds the key to everything about the mind. In fact, most of them firmly believe that Brain = Mind. The promise that brain biology is sufficient to explain the mind, morality, religion, metaphysics, thinking, feeling, creativity, and so on is empty.
It is perfectly possible to believe that biology holds the key to everything about the mind while also holding the view that the mind is not the brain. The usual analogy that people use is between hardware and software. Software does not exist as something separate from hardware. But software is not hardware.

A more troubling question: If biology does indeed hold the key to everything about the mind and if biology is entirely describable by discoverable natural laws of the underlying physics and chemistry, then our thoughts must, in principle, be entirely describable by those laws. But that includes the thoughts which discovered the laws which describe the thoughts. So, much like the time-travel paradox inherent in the way that the Terminator robot was invented in Terminators 1 and 2, the thoughts and the laws, which both govern them were discovered by them, are part of an arbitrary closed loop.
There was a funny moment in a panel debate that occurred between a neuroscientists and a philosopher (amongst others). The former said that he believed there were two components to reality - the equivalents of hardware and software. The philosopher (forgot name) jumped, claiming him to be a dualist in what I suppose is a slam dunk in some philosophical circles.

The neuroscientist just looked bemused, unaware of the long-term jousting of philosophers and said, "So what?". You can imagine his level of interest in the subsequent monism/dualism explanation. He said, "Then I am a dualist". It's hard to defeat those who don't agree with the match's result :)

Is the gradual process of universal self discovery surprising? Like all of us, you yourself first started to exist (operating within the bounds of the physical laws) thoroughly clueless, and then took years to make some small sense of existence.

Meanwhile, we can at least say that the brain is not the sole repository of neurons; there's gut neurons and sensory neurons all over the body. That may not be the end of it either. Microbial studies suggest that simple sensing is possible with equivalent systems than nervous systems (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971467/). I suspect sensing runs deeper than we have so far learned.

So I see us as smarter than our brains in the same way as the solar system is more massive than the Sun, although the Sun is more massive than all other material in its system combined, even though there is more additional material than we once realised.

One of "those" thoughts occurs to me. In a sense, the gut is akin to a scaled up version of a mitochondrion in a cell - a discrete energy source in an interdependent relationship with the host organism. As with mitochondria, the DNA of our gut microflora differs from that of the organism. Being as big a fan of fractals as our old pal Leo, I suggest that humans will become akin to mitochondria, locked inside their cubicles, safe from the increasingly hostile elements, environmental toxins and crowding, a power source of one "cell" (both meanings apply) of the internet. The "mitochondriac" will be ever more dependent upon its electronic communications (PC/TV v transmitter chemicals) to stay in touch with the host, and will rely on home deliveries of resources rather than brave the problems of the outside world. South Korea looks closest so far to this idea, but Beijing's issues are forcing people indoors.

Therefore, more of our brains are being downloaded, starting with short term memory. If more of our brains are being downloaded, that suggests minds becoming ever more adept at working the system but ever less able to do anything physical for themselves. We are tending to be better at knowing, say, which buttons to press to order new socks than how to mend a sock. Like ants, we are becoming so enmeshed as to be mysteriously ridiculous and irrational in our behaviours - constantly fiddling around with abstractions that are utterly meaningless to other species and, increasingly, even other cultures. Money exchange is the most clear example.

Ancient hunter gatherers would think us moderns to be witless weirdos, more or less as Huxley's Savages on the Reservation thought of the caste members who would visit - and Huxley invites the reader to form the same opinion of the book's blinkered and caste-controlled characters.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by Atreyu »

I agree that "the Mind" does not equal the brain, but it's naive to expect that science could be any different. Science can only study what it knows how to study. Science cannot study the Mind directly simply because it cannot "pin it down" and say exactly what it is. For science, the "mind" is an abstract concept, and science doesn't deal with the abstract. But the brain can easily be seen and analyzed.

Another way of putting it is to say that the study of the Mind is properly psychology, not physiology. And science doesn't know how to do (practice) psychology. They can only do physiology. Modern "psychology" is quackery....
User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 151
Joined: August 17th, 2016, 5:32 pm

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by TSBU »

Vikrant C wrote:Left to its own devices, your brain knows zero about neurons
Not mine, my brain knows a couple of things about neurons, not a lot, but not zero.
; it has no idea from where the thoughts come.
You mean at the begining? cause I/my brain can explain where the thoughts come from, at least more than zero.
Because the brain knows nothing about itself, neuroscience began by assuming that the brain is the only privileged object in the known universe that is conscious.
No. That's not neuroscience, find a neuroscience book saying that and post it here.
This assumption is almost never questioned by any neuroscientist because the everyday work in that field consists of tinkering with the brain's biology. All higher questions about mind, psychology, religion, morals, aesthetics, and metaphysics are reduced to biology.
No. Neuroscientist can think in those things too, and I would say they study more than biology, it's more related with medicine, or chemistry, than biology (as a science). Saying that your brain is what we usually understand by you, doesn't imply that you aren't still you.
Yet in assuming that the "brain" is a privileged object, neuroscience contradicts itself.
Define "priviliged" (not a very scientific word...), and... find a book saying it.
Objects are things
Everything is a thing XD.
things have working parts; the working parts, when fully understood, define the thing you are studying and want to understand.
Well, not necesarily, they can be things with no parts, simple concepts.
But there is nothing privileged about the brain's working parts. Its basic chemicals are the same as in the rest of the body. The glucose on which neurons feed isn't smarter than the glucose coursing through the bloodstream everywhere else. Nor is there a point, biologically speaking, where you can say, "Here is where all of this physical stuff learned to think."
Yes, there is, but it would take a while to explain you where. Maybe you should start by reading about Turing machines.
The brain's inability to understand the brain is a profound dilemma that isn't solved through biology.
A cage can't contain itself. If you knew what would you do in the future before thinking it, you wouldn't be thinking. There are too many things to control in our brain, but there aren't too many things in a dog brain. That's why you can easily predict an amoeba and not a person.
But neuroscientists insist that biology holds the key to everything about the mind. In fact, most of them firmly believe that Brain = Mind. The promise that brain biology is sufficient to explain the mind, morality, religion, metaphysics, thinking, feeling, creativity, and so on is empty.
Empty? Not at all. Read a neuroscience book, they are not very empty, they ar full of interesting and complex things about you.
So how can we become smarter than our brains?
The real question is what exactly is you. Using a calculator or improving your brain, ading techonology maybe.
The brain, like a radio, is a receiver. The reason the brain doesn't know that it is a receiver--aside from the fact that it doesn't know anything about itself--is that it is too involved in the reception. When thoughts, feelings, sensations, and images fill our minds, we are creatures of experience, enveloped by those experiences.
Why does this topic has so many answers? I won't read anymore.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by Sy Borg »

Atreyu wrote:I agree that "the Mind" does not equal the brain, but it's naive to expect that science could be any different. Science can only study what it knows how to study. Science cannot study the Mind directly simply because it cannot "pin it down" and say exactly what it is. For science, the "mind" is an abstract concept, and science doesn't deal with the abstract. But the brain can easily be seen and analyzed.

Another way of putting it is to say that the study of the Mind is properly psychology, not physiology. And science doesn't know how to do (practice) psychology. They can only do physiology. Modern "psychology" is quackery....
Atreyu wrote:Modern "psychology" is quackery....
That's harsh :lol:. It sounds like you're channelling GG.

Each general advance of humanity brings an associated loss of skills and creativity within professions. The uploading of our individual minds into a communal mind comes at the expense of sensitivity and instinct. Every generation mourns the losses of their individual qualities in the next generation. However, the next generation still end up being far more empowered than the prior one en masse, despite on average being less individually capable.

Instinct and emotions are basically "intelligence hacks" where organisms can perform efficacious actions that are too complex to process, or at least not in a timely manner. These "hacks", when finely honed, can allow humans to perform great individual feats and perhaps reach their highest potentials as individuals. Certainly this is the case in any performance-based activity, from public speaking and negotiation to music and sports.

However, instincts and emotions are unreliable and concentrated populations require much ordering. Thus came science - the quest for reliability. If I do x, then y should happen. Predictability, control and order in a wild and hostile world. The scientific method provided reliability, and with that confidence and empowerment. The empowerment is less to to individuals than to the society at large. When compared with our natural individual instinctive gifts the scientific method is plodding, obvious and is sometimes blinkered to the point of obtuseness, but the benefits are generalised rather than individual. Individual gifts become increasingly less important than being able to access the knowledge of the most gifted who came before.

The result could be expected to be an ever greater homogenisation or "flattening" of individual abilities, with a increase in societal empowerment. Our minds are certainly not all in our brains, not any more at least, with storage, retrieval and transfer of our memories and ideas stored as binary code in magnetic, optical or electronic media.

The whole of humanity is becoming ever more than the sum of its parts, which raises some existential questions.
User avatar
TSBU
Posts: 151
Joined: August 17th, 2016, 5:32 pm

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by TSBU »

I wonder why can't I stop feeling hope... it doesn't matter. Please delete soon my account if it is possible.
Greta wrote:
Each general advance of humanity brings an associated loss of skills and creativity within professions.
False. Maybe you should put examples, say how or... something more than the sentence...
The uploading of our individual minds into a communal mind comes at the expense of sensitivity and instinct.

Communal mind doesn't exist.
Every generation mourns the losses of their individual qualities in the next generation.
Not really. And... really, I think you should try to say why do you say what you say...
However, the next generation still end up being far more empowered than the prior one en masse, despite on average being less individually capable.
Maybe an "empowered" definition would be necesary here XD.
Instinct and emotions are basically "intelligence hacks" where organisms can perform efficacious actions that are too complex to process, or at least not in a timely manner.
I don't agree with that.
These "hacks", when finely honed, can allow humans to perform great individual feats and perhaps reach their highest potentials as individuals. Certainly this is the case in any performance-based activity, from public speaking and negotiation to music and sports.
And this is absurd, reaching any "performance-based activity" (any activity) is more and more based in logic all the time. 50 years ago some sportperoople smoked, today they count the calories they eat, they know exactly how much hours they can train, etc. Music is math, and it has been always teached, etc.
However, instincts and emotions are unreliable and concentrated populations require much ordering.
As I've said many times, order can't be measured. And there is not many order here, it is a glorious mess.
The empowerment is less to to individuals than to the society at large. When compared with our natural individual instinctive gifts the scientific method is plodding, obvious and is sometimes blinkered to the point of obtuseness
I think you don't understand what some people want to call scientific method.
but the benefits are generalised rather than individual
Your post is whole of afirmations, but you don't explain any of them.
Individual gifts become increasingly less important than being able to access the knowledge of the most gifted who came before.
Not at all. 50 years ago, many people could go to any job, today, you have to prove your skills and make an exam. For example, a bomberman now has to be very fit. And now more than ever, we are seeing how many individuals develop new things and make possible what the rest can't. Automatization will make more and more difficult to majority to be more than "other cheap tool like the previous one", having more knowledge acces for everybody make things very different to the past, where those in power were those who had it (and the man who worked with iron was one whose father had been working with iron).
The result could be expected to be an ever greater homogenisation or "flattening" of individual abilities, with a increase in societal empowerment.
What I see is not like that at all, it is a place where, even though people want (when they are in the floor) to stop those who can fly, it's easier than ever to fly (if you can). Now you can access to every knowledge easily, and I see lies and control everywhere over those who can't see it, and many people out of that.
Our minds are certainly not all in our brains, not any more at least, with storage, retrieval and transfer of our memories and ideas stored as binary code in magnetic, optical or electronic media.
They are as "ours" as when some people invented how to write. If we have one.
The whole of humanity is becoming ever more than the sum of its parts, which raises some existential questions.
The first sentence is a pretty nosense. I don't know, maybe you are right and people are becoming stupid, but I can't see that as a good thing :/
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Smarter than your brain?

Post by Sy Borg »

Have deactivated your account but seemingly don't have the permissions to delete it.

Yes, I did not go into specialisation of roles and specific skills in that post, which I should have done. However, most of your final comment on the forum above were baseless assertions.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021