brain/mind

[Causality]

Because if there is no mind and consciousness in the universe and therefore not in any of its parts the question arises as to how mind could possibly manifest in any individual existing element of a totally mindless universe. To say that mind-cosciousness is but a function of 'mindless' material brain structure is also to say there must be a 'reason' external to this mindless brain matter which drives the necessity for this mindless brain to be aware and conscious of its existence and the 'meaning' and 'direction' of this totally 'mindless' universe. Without mind as a universal reality there is no reason for any aspect of existence to be individually conscious. In fact there is no reason for existence, period.

You're just playing with us, right?

Let's substitute 'teeth' for 'mind' in a little thought experiment changing your post.

To say that the possession of teeth is but a function of a 'toothless' material body structure is also to say there must be a 'reason' external to this toothless body to be in need of teeth.
​

Successful mammals need teeth to eat prey and a brain to find it. There is no more need for a universal mind as there is for universal teeth.

 

[Slimething]

I will stay with the OED.

Cool. From http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/cause?view=uk

http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-861022-X?view=ask

cause



• noun 1 a person or thing that produces an effect. 2 reasonable grounds for a belief or action: cause for concern. 3 a principle or movement which one is prepared to support or advocate. 4 a lawsuit.
• verb be the cause of; make happen.
[SIZE=-1]— PHRASES[/SIZE] cause and effect the principle of causation. make common cause unite in order to achieve a shared aim. [SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] causeless [SIZE=-1]adjective[/SIZE]. [SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] Latin causa.


Where you gonna go now, rat coma?

 

[maatorc]

Cool. From http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/cause?view=uk
[qimg]http://www.askoxford.com/images/interface/concise_oed.gif[/qimg] http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-861022-X?view=ask
cause
• noun 1 a person or thing that produces an effect. 2 reasonable grounds for a belief or action: cause for concern. 3 a principle or movement which one is prepared to support or advocate. 4 a lawsuit. • verb be the cause of; make happen.
[SIZE=-1]— PHRASES[/SIZE] cause and effect the principle of causation. make common cause unite in order to achieve a shared aim. [SIZE=-1]— DERIVATIVES[/SIZE] causeless [SIZE=-1]adjective[/SIZE]. [SIZE=-1]— ORIGIN[/SIZE] Latin causa. Where you gonna go now, rat coma?

If you look in a larger OED you will see that cause is a reason.

 

[maatorc]

You're just playing with us, right?
Let's substitute 'teeth' for 'mind' in a little thought experiment changing your post.

To say that the possession of teeth is but a function of a 'toothless' material body structure is also to say there must be a 'reason' external to this toothless body to be in need of teeth.​

Successful mammals need teeth to eat prey and a brain to find it. There is no more need for a universal mind as there is for universal teeth.

The example works only if the underlying assumption of mind as a physical function of brain is true. This cannot be demonstrated because material and mental events are incommensurable.

 

[Causality]

The example works only if the underlying assumption of mind as a physical function of brain is true. This cannot be demonstrated because material and mental events are incommensurable.

There is no reason material and mental events cannot be compared. If there is you haven't supplied the causality!

I empathize with you, I went through the same thing many years ago. Eventually I embraced the only logical conclusion that the mind is a process of the brain. It's great, it's cool, there's no reason to fear it. It is us!

 

[maatorc]

There is no reason material and mental events cannot be compared. If there is you haven't supplied the causality!

Yes, they can be compared, but there is no means to actually materially measure non-material events. Outside of its personal realization, a mental event can only be materially inferred by others as a basis of agreement or acceptance, which is done all the time. Mind as a brain function can only be inferred, and as is the case with many people, and not entirely unreasonably because that is how it appears to be, thus agreed upon and accepted as the only possible explanation of mind. The flaw here is that the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena means the brain-mind explanation can only be inferred and not demonstrated.

 

[Slimething]

If you look in a larger OED you will see that cause is a reason.

Post it. I'll take it apart for you. Go ahead. Show your evidence.

 

[maatorc]

Post it. I'll take it apart for you. Go ahead. Show your evidence.

Look it up yourself.

 

[Hokulele]

Here is the description of the differences between "reason" and "cause", with a little "motive" thrown in for fun.

Reason, cause, motive are terms for a circumstance (or circumstances) which brings about or explains certain results. A reason is an explanation of a situation or circumstance which made certain results seem possible or appropriate: The reason for the robbery was the victim's display of his money. The cause is the way in which the circumstances produce the effect, that is, make a specific action seem necessary or desirable: The cause was the robber's extreme need of money. A motive is the hope, desire, or other force which starts the action (or an action) in an attempt to produce specific results: The motive was to get money to buy food for his family.

You can see this in context here. Each of these terms have different meanings, especially when used in context. A cause is not a reason.

 

[davidsmith73]

Because if there is no mind and consciousness in the universe and therefore not in any of its parts the question arises as to how mind could possibly manifest in any individual existing element of a totally mindless universe.

Assuming that you're using "mind" in the same way that I use "qualia", I agree. I think this is essentially the 'hard problem'. Although such a question, alone, is not enough for me to think that the concept of a universal mind is necessary.

To say that mind-cosciousness is but a function of 'mindless' material brain structure is also to say there must be a 'reason' external to this mindless brain matter which drives the necessity for this mindless brain to be aware and conscious of its existence and the 'meaning' and 'direction' of this totally 'mindless' universe.

Mmm. Not sure what kind of definition of mind you are using here. I understand what you mean when you talk about a 'reason external to the mindless brain matter', in other words you are refering to our physical laws yes?.

Without mind as a universal reality there is no reason for any aspect of existence to be individually conscious.

Unless you are someone like Dennet who would try to explain away consciousness. But I think that kind of approach doesn't make sense, because it denies the existence of the explanandum (qualia) that the explanation is trying to explain. Anyway, I agree with your above statement pending some clarification of terms perhaps.

In fact there is no reason for existence, period.

Indeed. I believe that mental monism is the only way for us to account for both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of consciousness.

 

[davidsmith73]

I empathize with you, I went through the same thing many years ago. Eventually I embraced the only logical conclusion that the mind is a process of the brain.

Could you briefly guide us through that logic, with an emphasis on your starting definition of precisely what it is you are trying to explain?

 

[maatorc]

Assuming that you're using "mind" in the same way that I use "qualia", I agree. I think this is essentially the 'hard problem'. Although such a question, alone, is not enough for me to think that the concept of a universal mind is necessary. Mmm. Not sure what kind of definition of mind you are using here. I understand what you mean when you talk about a 'reason external to the mindless brain matter', in other words you are refering to our physical laws yes?. Unless you are someone like Dennet who would try to explain away consciousness. But I think that kind of approach doesn't make sense, because it denies the existence of the explanandum (qualia) that the explanation is trying to explain. Anyway, I agree with your above statement pending some clarification of terms perhaps.
Indeed. I believe that mental monism is the only way for us to account for both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of consciousness.

Thanks for your civil and courteous comments. We do not have to agree on everything. Dennett's site is very interesting. The linked "Brights' seems somewhat precious. The continuing ridicule directed towords me by certain "Dims' in this thread is expected and accepted as coming with the territory and what one expects when questioning or challenging the narrow and extremist views of modern skeptism.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Because if there is no mind and consciousness in the universe and therefore not in any of its parts the question arises as to how mind could possibly manifest in any individual existing element of a totally mindless universe. To say that mind-cosciousness is but a function of 'mindless' material brain structure is also to say there must be a 'reason' external to this mindless brain matter which drives the necessity for this mindless brain to be aware and conscious of its existence and the 'meaning' and 'direction' of this totally 'mindless' universe. Without mind as a universal reality there is no reason for any aspect of existence to be individually conscious. In fact there is no reason for existence, period.

Well, that's one of the longest just-so statements I've read in awhile. Here's a mechanism for self-awareness to arise: evolution. Why? Because it's useful to our survival to have a sense of me-ness and ownership of our actions.

It really doesn't have to be all fuzzy and glittery and new-agey.

In fact there is no reason for existence, period.

There doesn't have to be a reason.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Thanks for your civil and courteous comments. We do not have to agree on everything. Dennett's site is very interesting. The linked "Brights' seems somewhat precious. The continuing ridicule directed towords me by certain "Dims' in this thread is expected and accepted as coming with the territory and what one expects when questioning or challenging the narrow and extremist views of modern skeptism.

Dude, by all means, question away! I'm sure we're all closed-minded in one way or another. But new-agey catenation of pseudo-scientific terminology doesn't do the trick. Without a coherent justification for universal mind, I just don't see why it's necessary.

~~ Paul

 

[cyborg]

Who needs a universal mind when universal math is sufficient?

 

[davidsmith73]

Who needs a universal mind when universal math is sufficient?

How is universal math sufficient to account for non-physical aspects of consciousness?

 

[Dancing David]

Because if there is no mind and consciousness in the universe and therefore not in any of its parts the question arises as to how mind could possibly manifest in any individual existing element of a totally mindless universe. To say that mind-cosciousness is but a function of 'mindless' material brain structure is also to say there must be a 'reason' external to this mindless brain matter which drives the necessity for this mindless brain to be aware and conscious of its existence and the 'meaning' and 'direction' of this totally 'mindless' universe. Without mind as a universal reality there is no reason for any aspect of existence to be individually conscious. In fact there is no reason for existence, period.

This gets back to the consciousness debate and p-zombies. We can hypothesize a giant machine made out of toilet papaer tubes and rocks with a mechanism to life the rocks from the out put chute where the communication occurs. This giant structure could be programmed to imitate consciousness or a 'mind'. (Not my concept)

Which gets to P-zombie and Mercutio's M-zombie. the appearance of consciousness is the equivalent of consciousness, the appearance of mind is the equivalent of mind. There is a logical inconsistancy in saying there is a duality, there can not be a creation that exhibits consiousness that is not consciousness, same for the 'mind'.

You are arguing from some transcendant quality of mind, which is based upon dualism. This is the fallacy of the 'ghost in the machine'.

 

[Dancing David]

You are special in that your mind-set of denial, derision, and ridicule disqualifies you from the attention of those able to prove it.

So prove that mind is not an emergent property of matter.

 

[Cuddles]

How is universal math sufficient to account for non-physical aspects of consciousness?

What makes you think there is anything non-physical that needs to be accounted for? "Non-physical" is just another way of saying "Doesn't exist".

 

[Dancing David]

Has anyone got a brain?
Read the post again. You seem not to have been able to understand what it says. Your comment does not reflect what it says, and is meaningless in this context. You are saying I said something I did not say. This reflects extremely poorly on your integrity and intelligence.

Perhaps to me it looks as though you stated that matter that is not mind is not capable of producing a physical effect that is called mind. Which begs the question.

What of the origin of the original mind that is manifersted in the emergent property of material exhibiting mind.

Because if there is no mind and consciousness in the universe and therefore not in any of its parts the question arises as to how mind could possibly manifest in any individual existing element of a totally mindless universe.

There are processes that are described as conscious or mind that does not mean they exist in the Platonic sense of beauty.

To say that mind-cosciousness is but a function of 'mindless' material brain structure is also to say there must be a 'reason' external to this mindless brain matter which drives the necessity for this mindless brain to be aware and conscious of its existence and the 'meaning' and 'direction' of this totally 'mindless' universe.

There need not be a reason at all that the process of consciousnes would arise that is 'external' to the organization of mindless matter. The 'mindless material brain' is not a logical statement to me, the process described as mind is an dependant property of the complex organization of the brain (IMO).

Without mind as a universal reality there is no reason for any aspect of existence to be individually conscious.

I would agree that due to isotropy the property ascribed to a process as mind is capable of manifestation in a number of different forms that are based upon complex interactions. But that does not mean that there is a universal "elastic collision' that is not dependant upon the depandant property of two colliding elastic objects.

Mind as potentialy universal process does not equate to the common notions of a 'universal mind'.

How are you using the term 'universal mind'?

In fact there is no reason for existence, period.

Existance does not require reason, it simply is. There need not be mind or consciousness for there to be existance. there will not be awareness of existance, but there can still be existance.