Guest
Unregistered
G
Is the mind the same as the brain, or different?
Mind the same as brain
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
-
- Tags
- brain
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
My understanding:
The brain is the organic lumpy squishy stuff between your ears.
The mind is thought, and understanding, and decision making. These things happen to occur in the brain. If the mind were located somewhere else, the brain would still be there, maybe in a different configuration, performing its autonomic nervous system functions, sensory functions, etc.
I refuse to make any computer analogies about this subject.
The brain is the organic lumpy squishy stuff between your ears.
The mind is thought, and understanding, and decision making. These things happen to occur in the brain. If the mind were located somewhere else, the brain would still be there, maybe in a different configuration, performing its autonomic nervous system functions, sensory functions, etc.
I refuse to make any computer analogies about this subject.
Different. The brain is an immensely complicated physical organ, the mind is an emergent property inferred from our behavior. As such, "the mind" does not exist as an entity, but as a useful abstraction.
We speak of "changing our minds," "making up our minds," "being mindful," "minding our manners," "having half a mind to do something," "going out of our mind." None of these things works quite right if we just substitute "brain" for "mind." And it is more than just semantics. In each of these sense, "mind" is a convenient stand-in for some aspect of our behavior--that is, what the whole person is doing, not just the brain.
My 2 cents.
We speak of "changing our minds," "making up our minds," "being mindful," "minding our manners," "having half a mind to do something," "going out of our mind." None of these things works quite right if we just substitute "brain" for "mind." And it is more than just semantics. In each of these sense, "mind" is a convenient stand-in for some aspect of our behavior--that is, what the whole person is doing, not just the brain.
My 2 cents.
Gebeker
Unregistered
G
chance said:
That's the way I would say it.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
fishbob said:
Rubbish. You are presupposing the correctness of the materialist metaphysic.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Mercutio said:
What a load of f*cking ◊◊◊◊.
Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
BillyJoe said:I'm glad you've used up that compliment on someone else.....leaves me with the courage to say......
The mind is an illusion created by the brain.
Sorry BillieJoe, but I think it's meaningless to describe the mind as an illusion. The mind exists by virtue of the fact that it is the term used to encapsulate our mental lives. As such the mind exists by virtue of the fact we have mental lives. Of course the ultimate ontological status of the mind is another issue.
Gebeker
Unregistered
G
Interesting Ian said:
It's not rubbish at all. In fact, there is a huge amount of scientific literature that supports the idea that activity in the brain is responsible for consciousness.
1. Damage to specific areas of the brain causes predictable effects on "mind".
2. Electrical stimulation of specific areas also affects the mind.
3. fMRI shows predictable patterns of brain activity associated with higher cognitive functions.
4. Pharmacological agents that affect the brain through known biochemical processes have fairly predictable effects on various aspects of "mind", including depression, anxiety, and others.
5. Recording from single neurons in primates shows clear relationships between the activity of brain cells and various cognitive functions.
Specific references available on request to support all of the above...
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that anything OTHER than the brain is necessary for consciousness.
In my opinion, this is not helpful. It does nothing to advance the discussion (and it's somewhat circular) to say that the mind exists by virtue of the fact that we have mental lives.
Edit: corrected an error in the quotes.
Sorry BillieJoe, but I think it's meaningless to describe the mind as an illusion. The mind exists by virtue of
the fact that it is the term used to encapsulate our mental lives. As such the mind exists by virtue of the
fact we have mental lives. Of course the ultimate ontological status of the mind is another issue.
I come this close to agreeing with you. That the mind "is the term used to encapsulate our mental lives" is exactly what I said above {that you said was a steaming load, you recall}. But you circularly define mental lives. We do think (even you--insert predictable comment here)--that much is true. But is thinking something that our mind does? There is no evidence for a mind that does our thinking for us. You see thinking as evidence for a mind, simply because you believe that a mind is what does thinking. If I believed that rain was angel piss, I'd see evidence of angels every time it rained.
People think. They act. They remember. They feel. These are things we do, not things our minds do. That we refer to these things in mentalistic fashion is a product of our language, not of reality.
the fact that it is the term used to encapsulate our mental lives. As such the mind exists by virtue of the
fact we have mental lives. Of course the ultimate ontological status of the mind is another issue.
I come this close to agreeing with you. That the mind "is the term used to encapsulate our mental lives" is exactly what I said above {that you said was a steaming load, you recall}. But you circularly define mental lives. We do think (even you--insert predictable comment here)--that much is true. But is thinking something that our mind does? There is no evidence for a mind that does our thinking for us. You see thinking as evidence for a mind, simply because you believe that a mind is what does thinking. If I believed that rain was angel piss, I'd see evidence of angels every time it rained.
People think. They act. They remember. They feel. These are things we do, not things our minds do. That we refer to these things in mentalistic fashion is a product of our language, not of reality.
(newbie)Interesting Ian
Unregistered
I
Gebeker said:
Please be more accurate in your terminology. Are you saying that the brain is the origin of our mental lives?
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.
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".
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! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes.
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??
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?
Gebeker
Unregistered
G
Interesting Ian said:
Yes.
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.
This is the standard criticism of correlational studies. However, as I pointed out, most of the evidence I’ve cited is not 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, 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”.
As you can see, substituting the actual terms into your paragraph makes it sound like nonsense. People take anti-depressants in response to the advise of a doctor. To argue that getting advise from a doctor improves depression is essentially a claim that anti-depressants only work through the placebo effect. However, a huge number of studies have controlled for the placebo effect and have clearly shown that many antidepressants actually work, and are not just placebo effects.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
Second, even if you can show us scientific proof of the existence of life after death (and I don't think you can), 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?
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”.
Finally, I would ask you to clarify your position. What do you believe is the ultimate origin of "mind"?
Any search for evidence of mind will be fruitless. "Mental entities" exist in language only. We think, but we say we "have thoughts." We remember, but we say we "have memories." We feel, but we say we "have feelings." In each case, the first is something we do, but the second is a metaphor. I don't have feelings in the same literal sense that I have a computer or 57 cents in change. I have feelings (& thoughts & memories) in the same sense that I have my own particular walk (limping on both legs, sorta) I don't have this walk separate from my walking, nor do I have thoughts separate from my thinking. We speak of mental entities as if they exist, not because they exist. It is a convenient use of language, not an actual thing ("mental" or physical)
BTW, this does not mean it is all in the brain. As just one small example, your adrenal glands contribute to your "feelings."
BTW, this does not mean it is all in the brain. As just one small example, your adrenal glands contribute to your "feelings."
Gebeker
Unregistered
G
Well, adrenal glands contribute to feelings only by acting on the brain.