Mind the same as brain

metacristi · Apr 1, 2003

Whodini

Unfortunately there is no definite scientific answer to answer this question,I can only present my subjective opinion.
It is true that neurology and AI research point out in the direction of an identity between mental states and brain states though I believe [based on some subjective,strictly personal,evidence] that mind is more than that.I see the brain as a sort of co-processor very useful to deal with the observed reality at our level,still interacting with 'something' extra let's name this 'soul';the result of this interaction being an emergent 'compound' personality.I am not at all sure that the 'soul' is fundamental to reality but in my view it carries out the bigger part of our personality having a much greater 'life expectancy'.
Sure this does not explain what is consciousness since the soul is seen only as a carrier of the biggest part of our usual consciousness.In fact the mind-matter problem is shifted at another level only,the soul is still 'material' interacting very faintly with usual matter.I am rather an agnostic with respect to the ultimate ground of reality though pan-protopsychism is the closest to me...
Some might name this dualism but no,at least in my acception.Even if the soul were the consciousness,fundamental to reality [matter and mind=the soul being the only two 'substances' existent at the fundamental level of reality] I see here only an 'extended materialism' since the two 'substances' are not totally different so that they can still interact.
Or to please even those who stick to the usual definition of dualism [two substances at the fundamental level of reality no matter whether they can interact or not] I would name it 'materialist dualism'.

Edit to add:

This is not incompatible with the possible existence of a God at the fundamental level of reality [or above at the 'soul level-my preference] who 'created' our universe by 'formatting' some [existing from eternity too] fundamental 'substances'.But even the omni-all type of God is a possibility...

Of course this is only my subjective point of view,my metaphysics,I claim nothing.I never forget to 'stick' this disclaimer when I present my subjective opinion.

Interesting Ian · Apr 1, 2003

Originally posted by metacristi
I am rather an agnositc with respect to the ultimate ground of reality though pan-protopsychism is the closest to me...

{Nods wisely}

fishbob · Apr 1, 2003

II sez:

Rubbish. You are presupposing the correctness of the materialist metaphysic

What the heck is that supposed to mean?

Then later II sez:

Well apart from the fact that the onus is upon you to provide evidence to support your position, there is a great deal of evidence. What about all the evidence suggestive of survival (life after death) for example??

There is no evidence of life after death for example.

Gebeker · Apr 1, 2003

metacristi, thanks for your post.

I see the brain as a sort of co-processor very useful to deal with the observed reality at our level,still interacting with 'something' extra let's name this 'soul';the result of this interaction being an emergent 'compound' personality.

Again, the trouble is that there is no evidence of any kind to support this idea.

I am not at all sure that the 'soul' is fundamental to reality but in my view it carries out the bigger part of our personality having a much greater 'life expectancy'. Sure this does not explain what is consciousness since the soul is seen only as a carrier of the biggest part of our usual consciousness.

If this is true, then what happens when we go to sleep? Or if we are in a coma? When we are not conscious, does the soul somehow go away? Or does it temporarily sever its connection with the brain?

If consciousness mostly resides in the soul, then why is it that damage to the brain causes such highly specific and predictable effects on mind (Alzheimer's disease, for example)?

The activity of single neurons has been shown to be strongly related to higher cognitive functions, such as decision making. In fact, by recording the activity of single neurons in monkeys trained in decision-making tasks, it is possible to know what decision the monkey is going to make, several seconds before he reveals his choice by a behavioral response . (Shadlen, and Newsome, 1996. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol 93, pp 628-633.; Romo and Salinas, 1999. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol 9. pp 487-493; Schall and Thompson, 1999. Annual Review of Neuroscience, vol 22. pp 241-260.)

IMHO, it's very hard to reconcile these observations with the idea that consciousness is mostly "soul". Sure, you can insist that something besides the brain is necessary, but I don't think there is any valid reason for believing that. I could just as easily insist that there is an invisible unicorn that follows me around all the time, and you can't disprove it. But, if I can't produce any evidence for my unicorn friend, then you would (quite rightly) dismiss my claim.

IMHO, the claim that something besides the brain is needed for consciousness is like that. No one can disprove it, but why on earth would anyone believe it?

c0rbin · Apr 1, 2003

Whodini trolled and Interesting Iain bit.

Nice explanations from all else involved, though.

You can see how those who obfuscate want to live in the fantasy world where in their dreams they live forever. While those interested in the truth can bullet point the evidence that supports reality.

metacristi · Apr 1, 2003

cOrbin

Whodini trolled and Interesting Iain bit.

Nice explanations from all else involved, though.

You can see how those who obfuscate want to live in the fantasy world where in their dreams they live forever. While those interested in the truth can bullet point the evidence that supports reality.

Are you sure that they are not interested by the real world?What makes you believe that only atheists or 'usual materialists' could find 'the truth' [whatever that might mean]?Are you sure that a simple belief [different from dogma!] could stop one to find 'the truth'?
After all one might genunely believe that they have in the pocket some money [because they vaguely remember that someone have put them there-for example]...till the moment of truth when they make the constatation that there is nothing...
I see no contradiction here,belief and 'finding the truth' are totally compatible as much as dogma is not brought forth.What do you think?
What if they are right?

Interesting Ian · Apr 2, 2003

Gebeker said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All of which demonstrates a correlation between physical process in the brain and various aspects of our mental lives. I've said these things before and I'll repeat them here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here, I would ask you to be more accurate in your terminology. The term “correlation” is inappropriate when describing things such as the effects of lesions, pharmacological agents, and electrical stimulation.

No I'm afraid it's the only word which is appropriate. We cannot declare a causal relationship. This is because the word "causal" ought only to be employed within the context of theories describing the world. Phenomenal consciousness is not implied by the totality of physical facts about the world. It is simply tacked on to the materialist metaphysic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that states of "A" may be correlated with "particular states of "B", means neither that "A" and "B" are one and the same thing, nor does it entail that "B" originates from "A", or indeed "A" from "B". It could be that both "A" and "B" both independently are generated by "C". Or it could be the case that although states of "B" are modified by states of "A", "B" ultimately originates from "C".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the standard criticism of correlational studies. However, as I pointed out, most of the evidence I’ve cited is not correlational .

As explained it is all correlational.

For example, let’s substitute the actual terms I used into your paragraph and see if it makes any sense:

“The fact that states of [an improvement in depression] may be correlated with [the taking of anti-depressant medications], means neither that [an improvement in depression] and [the taking of anti-depressants] are one and the same thing,

Obviously not. You wouldn't talk about the taking of anti-depressants though. It's the physical changes within the brain brought about by ant-depresants which is crucial. So the question then is whether certain physical processes in the brain is one and the same thing as being in a less depressed mood.

nor does it entail that [the taking of anti-depressants] originates from [an improvement in depression], or indeed [an improvement in depression] from [the taking of anti-depressants]. It could be that both [the taking of anti-depressants] and [an improvement in depression] both are independently generated by “C”.

Well you're not quoting what I said. This is ludicrous. Where's the bit I put about modification? The taking of anti depressants does lead to an alleviation of mood. This I do not deny.

What I am denying is that this somehow proves that the mind originates from the brain. I've already explained this. What is wrong with you??

Now, let’s take your final sentence in that paragraph:
“Or it could be the case that although [depression] is modified by [antidepressants], [emotions] ultimately originate from “C”. Again, I would challenge you to provide any evidence to support this claim.

It is not clear to me why it should be I who is required to provide evidence that the self and emotions are not identical or a property of physical processes. I'm taking the default sensible position that emotions are a manifestation of the self, and that this self is not identical to, or is a property of the physical. I mentioned all the evidence for survival. But really it's not a question of evidence because what we need to consider are competing metaphysical hypotheses. Does it make sense to suppose emotions are identical to, or are entailed by physical processes for example? These are the type of questions you need to address to see if your materialism is intelligible.

I have provided evidence to show that activity in the brain is both necessary [lesion studies] and sufficient [stimulation studies] to produce specific cognitive activity.

Yes and it's irrelevant because my metaphysical hypotheses equally accounts for such correlations. Namely the soul operates through the brain, but is appropriately "filtered" by the brain, depending upon its condition, thereby resulting in the mind.

If you want to claim that something else is also necessary, you need to provide evidence to support that claim. Otherwise, your hypothesis can be dismissed by Occam’s razor.

Appealing to Occams razor is vacuous because materialists always define the most simple position as the one in accordance with their metaphysic, ie materialism. If you applied Occams razor to TV sets you would conclude that the story line of a TV programme has its origin in the TV set's internal components! As I said, you need to consider the overall intelligibility of your position.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I have no particular problems with describing the mind as being caused by the brain. But this needn't have any implications that the mind has its origin in the brain. The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The picture on a TV screen is not completely caused by its internal components. Something else (the signal) is necessary. Again, you seem to want to suggest that something other than the brain is necessary for consciousness. Again, I would challenge you to provide evidence to support this claim.

Answered this above and in previous post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well apart from the fact that the onus is upon you to provide evidence to support your position, there is a great deal of evidence. What about all the evidence suggestive of survival (life after death) for example??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, I have already provided evidence to support my claim that the mind is the result of activity in the brain. You have provided no evidence at all to support your claims.

I could argue that correlations are equal evidence for my hypothesis. We need the brain to filter out certain perceptions and realities, otherwise I hazard a guess that we wouldn't be able to operate proficiently in this empirical reality.

Second, even if you can show us scientific proof of the existence of life after death (and I don't think you can),

You need to understand what "scientific proof" means. It's impossible to have scientific proof for survival. For scientific proof to work you need a theory. A theory which has predictions which subsequent experimentation either fullfills or falsifies.

it would do absolutely nothing to support your position. What reason do you have for assuming that the soul must be the same thing that we currently experience as mind?

The soul can't be identified with the mind because the mind changes all the time whilst presumably the soul would be unchanging. Think about what your mind is now compared to when you were 5 years old. The soul is that which makes you the very same person now, as when you were 5, or drunk, or suffering from Alzheimers etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be more precise. Are you stating it does nothing whatsoever to address the question of whether our minds are an illusion?

If so you are effectively asserting that my contention that it is vacuous to describe the mind is an illusion, is in turn vacuous itself.

Is this your stance?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My stance is simply that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the idea that what we call “mind” is caused by activity in the brain. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that anything ELSE is necessary for “mind”.

But even if materialism is correct, that doesn't mean the mind is an illusion now does it??

Finally, I would ask you to clarify your position. What do you believe is the ultimate origin of "mind"?

I believe the self is ontologically self-subsistent.

Kiri · Apr 2, 2003

"My brain hurts!"

"OOH! It'll have to come out!"

(Sorry, this should be in the Python thread)

I'd have to agree with the brain-as-hardware folks. The mind may be more than just neural activity, but it seems grounded in the squishy stuff to me.

Guest · Apr 2, 2003

----
Whodini trolled and Interesting Iain bit.
----

Corbin,

I asked a question that I was interested in. If you equate that with trolling, you obviously misunderstand the idea of a discussion board.

chance · Apr 2, 2003

Interesting Ian Are you proposing that the mind is a product of a Brain that is only acting as a sort of tuning device? How would you propose to test this idea?

saddam · Apr 2, 2003

Interesting Ian said:
{Nods wisely}

HAHAHAHAHA! Self-congratulation is a wise thing to do?

Then I am the wisest wise guy yet!

UnrepentantSinner · Apr 2, 2003

Whodini said:
Is the mind the same as the brain, or different?

Obviously is a product of the brain. Movement is the product of my muscles or speech is the sproduct of my vocal cords.

BillyJoe · Apr 2, 2003

The user illusion.....

The brain produces a representation of itself within itself.
The brain endows this representation of itself with the illusion of selfhood.
The "self" feels itself to be an entity separate from and in control of the brain.
In so doing, the "self" merely fiulfills the "purpose" for which the brain produced it.

metacristi · Apr 2, 2003

Gebeker

I could just as easily insist that there is an invisible unicorn that follows me around all the time, and you can't disprove it. But, if I can't produce any evidence for my unicorn friend, then you would (quite rightly) dismiss my claim. IMHO, the claim that something besides the brain is needed for consciousness is like that. No one can disprove it, but why on earth would anyone believe it?

Gebeker there is a marked distinction between belief and 'objective knowledge'.It's clear from my posts that I haven't made any claims that I have objective knowledge for my position.In fact I am agnostic in what knowledge [regarding the nature of consciusness] is concerned:I do not know the how consciousness arise.Exactly how does science,at least now,by the way.Unfortunately we do not have objective knowledge explaining how conscious experience arise yet...only some 'hints'...which are not enough to claim having knowledge beyond all reasonable doubt='objective knowledge'=provisional 'truth'.
Secondly,once clarified this,the problem is that there is no need to justify to you or to another one my belief since I claim nothing to others.If one wants to believe in your unicorn that's their problem,I have nothing against that,they can believe even that a stick created the universe...I am happy with that as much as no claim of having 'objective knowledge' is made.Only that,in my subjective system of values,I assign a very low probability to your unicorn to exist and therefore I choose not to believe in it.Conversely you are free to not believe in my metaphysics.It's as simple as that.
Still,since I consider myself a rational person,I must respect the rules of logic,never believe something without a reason.To justify a belief [different from creating new religions or dogmas] suffices to have even a 'subjective',strictly personal,'evidence' derived [preferably] from 'first hand' experiences.
And that's exactly what I do have,nonwithstanding the accusations of 'subjectivism' and lack of intersubjectivity.
This is enough to justify a belief if no claim of having 'objective knowledge' is made.No need to 'prove' my belief then with 'objective knowledge' (this subject was one of my main sources of polemics with some atheists on this site).
But note I haven't believed first and only after I tried to find a justification for my belief no,first were the 'experiences' (subjective indeed I agree) and only after that I chose to believe.
Simply believing in a certain hypothesis [having a preference when there is no objective knowledge which to settle clearly a certain problem-as the nature of consciousness for example or whether there exist a God-defined merely as the creator of the universe] is allowed by logic as much as one has a logical reason for that.
Besides this does not imply having certitudes that this prefered hypothesis is correct,in fact I remain open to the possibility to make the constatation later that it is wrong.Believing in it does not mean having certitudes,only that,in my subjective system of values,it is the most probable to be 'true' [at least as a 'provisional truth'] from all existing,valid logically,proposals.Nothing more I am open to all other logically valid proposals.I simply believe [in the existence of a soul as I defined it above] exactly how for example some atheists simply lack belief [in God].If this hypothesis will become 'objective knowledge' or not is entirely the task of science and of the scientific method to find out...

Guest · Apr 2, 2003

Re: Re: Mind the same as brain

UnrepentantSinner said:
Obviously is a product of the brain. Movement is the product of my muscles or speech is the sproduct of my vocal cords.

You can say "product" all you want, but you still haven't proven anything.

Skeptical Greg · Apr 2, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Mind the same as brain

Whodini said:
You can say "product" all you want, but you still haven't proven anything.

Show us someone without a brain who has a mind..

Guest · Apr 2, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Mind the same as brain

Diogenes said:
Show us someone without a brain who has a mind..

You don't endorse the concept of 'mind', so if I present an argument, how could you recognize it as right or wrong?

One can have a computer without a processor. It won't be a very effective computer though.

Skeptical Greg · Apr 2, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mind the same as brain

Whodini said:
You don't endorse the concept of 'mind', so if I present an argument, how could you recognize it as right or wrong?

Show me the mind without a brain, and then we will deal with my ability to recognize it.

One can have a computer without a processor. It won't be a very effective computer though.

I would suggest a " computer without a processor ", would by definition, no longer be a computer.

On the other hand, I can imagine that you have a computer without a processor.. Hmmmmm.. Confusing...

Guest · Apr 2, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mind the same as brain

----
Show me the mind without a brain, and then we will deal with my ability to recognize it.
----

Minds are packaged with brains, and nervous systems.

----
I would suggest a " computer without a processor ", would by definition, no longer be a computer.
----

Ok, how about a computer without a power source is still a computer.

Skeptical Greg · Apr 2, 2003

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Mind the same as brain

Whodini said:
----
Show me the mind without a brain, and then we will deal with my ability to recognize it.
----

Minds are packaged with brains, and nervous systems.

Sounds like you agree that a mind cannot exist in the absence of a brain. If so, then we agree on that..

----
I would suggest a " computer without a processor ", would by definition, no longer be a computer.
----

Ok, how about a computer without a power source is still a computer.

O.K... It wouldn't do any ' computing ' though. So, is a computer that can't compute, still a computer?..

Mind the same as brain

Muse

Interesting Ian

Unregistered

Seasonally Disaffected

Gebeker

Unregistered

Graduate Poster

Muse

Interesting Ian

Unregistered

Kiri

Unregistered

Guest

Unregistered

Critical Thinker

saddam

Unregistered

A post by Alan Smithee

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Guest

Unregistered

Agave Wine Connoisseur

Guest

Unregistered

Agave Wine Connoisseur

Guest

Unregistered

Agave Wine Connoisseur