Well, you can lead a horse to water and all...
1. Where else would it arise from?
First of all, thoughts are emergent phenomena, that won't necessarily correlate with any specific, discrete brain activities.
Close enough. But, those fears and fantasies you talk about are, in fact, the product of brain activity. Figured I would remind you of that.
The basis of the scientific method essentially rests on there being an objective universe that we can empirically measure independently of any particular individuals.
Well, you can lead a horse to water and all...
All kidding aside, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean you're wrong. We'll all find out (or not) somewhere down the line I guess. No hard feelings I hope.
Sunday afternoons.
Confirmation bias?
Good question. All those philosophers ought to become neuroscientists. Psychologists and psychiatrists too. While we're at it, maybe we should throw in political scientists and economists too.
Yes. And you know, the identity theory could emerge as the absolutely correct one someday too.
I knew there was someone here that sees things my way. Agreed.
If that's so, it follows that mental phenomena aren't necessarily reducible to brain activity, doesn't it?
Well, yes, but the fact that we have a great deal of evidence that schools of fish are composed of fish does not imply the same level of evidence that brain waves are composed of "schools of thoughts." Nor does the correlation between moral behavior and moral decisions. We have already defined moral behavior to be a collection of moral decisions. To define a brain wave artifact as a collection of thoughts is much messier, although it is certainly possible that such is the case.
I believe you are saying that one artifact of brain activity might be the correlation to multiple and diverse thoughts. If so, then it begs the question of where that difference came from. If not from a specifically quantifiable brain activity, then wouldn't it have to be from something else?
Well, it could also be the converse until proven otherwise. (Do I need to remind you of that?)
Very true, but the scientific method isn't very exact in fields such as psychology, where such empirical measurements have to be subjective at least to some degree.
Of course, but that doesn't mean that we do.
Absolutely. When we find the brain wave pattern for male african elephant, I'd love to see it. Especially if it can be measured independently of any particular individuals, rather than just repeatable for a single one.
Again we are in complete agreement, except I wouldn't ever go off saying anything of the sort. Why would I do that, if I have been arguing that the results of the experiments are irrelevant to the assertion made?
)No, of course not. No feelings at all; just dispassionate and inexorburble logic. I didn't invite you to, nor would I go to the trouble of doing so. After all, it's abundantly clear that you disagree to disagree, and by golly, that's what you're going to do and that's all there is to it.
Of course it is, just as it's perfectly fine to accept that it isn't, or to withhold judgment as I do. I've explained ad nauseam at this point.
No doubt you will back up that statement some day.
Argument by repetition? Oh, there's something a little new here. Animals think, therefore when the brain is destroyed, there's no more thinking.
Boy, that straw man party is just going gangbusters.
At one time, everything indicated the world was flat, too. I'll certainly grant you that there is strong evidence for partial correlations between mental and brain activity. My point is that is in no way proof that the mind and the brain are one and the same. But of course you know that already.
If you can't demonstrate a precise logical relationship between mind and brain, you have failed to make the first step in demonstrating that they are the same thing.
Looks like one of your straw men has had a bit too much to drink. Better cut him off for his own safety.
Again (and again, and again, and again) I make no proclamations about what the mind is. You're the one doing that. But hey, when all that progress you're talking about gets us to the point where we can map the brain the way we have mapped the genome, we'll both know whether mind and brain are different ways of looking at the same thing, won't we?
By we, I assume that you do not mean you and I. Because then you'd be wrong, and that would be unacceptable to you.
Nope, they aren't. Doesn't make any more sense to me than to say that brain activity is generated by thoughts. I roll four sevens in a row. Therefore, the idea that the only possible die roll is a seven makes complete sense and is consistently backed by every little discovery that I make. Even when I roll a five every now and then afterwards, because confirmation bias is one of mankind's little cognitive dissonances. Your hypothesis is somewhere in between that one and the hypothesis that the likelihood of rolling sevens with two six-sided dice is one in four. (Which it isn't, of course, before you decide that it's important to correct me.)
I won't bother to recommend that you elaborate on your refutations of arguments to the contrary of your own, since you obviously haven't bothered to study them. Nor will I repeat my previous arguments, since your mind is clearly closed. If you want to believe that lack of evidence for a contrary position supports the position you seem to have a great need to embrace, then so be it.
Well, we've about exhausted the other subject. I would say that it depends on how you define immortality. I certainly wouldn't want to keep this body for an eternity, any more than I would want to live my entire life with one set of underwear.
If it is productive towards making new discoveries, AND there is no other viable hypothesis, how could it be confirmation bias?
Let me know when they come up with an answer.
That is like saying a school of fish isn't necessarily reducible to fish.
Context might be good word to summarize it.
You will need a hypothesis first.
Yes, but those conclusions can also be tested, by further studies.
So what are we arguing about?
He was a nice guy. I gave him the most pleasant insult I could think of, when he came up on my list.p. s. I really did think that your "Sunday afternoons" quote was from Douglas Adams.
If you were asking for a proof, you would be right, but you are not right in claiming that there is not enough evidence to support this hypothesis. In fact, everything we know about the brain supports it, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support the alternative hypothesis that mental phenomena arise without, or partially without brain activity.
My entire argument is that the evidence in place doesn't support the conclusion that the identity theory is proven. Taking the opposite position is hardly productive towards making new discoveries, viable hypotheses to the contrary (and of course there are plenty, the viability of which I'm not interested in debating) notwithstanding.
I don't contest the veracity of the findings you describe. Confirmation bias was a guess.
Suppose you let me know when somebody hasn't instead.
A most interesting point, which would tend to refute any hypothesis that thoughts are mappable to neuron firings. Would you care to elaborate a bit on your second sentence here, or point me to a good place to read up on it? I'm unfamiliar with the data. (Please understand that I'm asking because I'm interested, not because I wish to argue.)
That's very interesting.
Sure. Suppose the mind is an infinite and eternal proposition. Perhaps we can use the analog of an infinite series of rooms, with infinitely varied contents. Further suppose that consciousness is the sum total of perceivable phenomena in one of these rooms. In such a case, consciousness would perceive its room to be the totality of existence, and any data coming from the room would appear to be evidence that the totality of existence were limited to its confines. In such a case, no such evidence would refute the fact of the infinite series, and would not support it either. However, the tendency to interpret the evidence as evidence that the room was all that existed would be very strong. The tendency to perceive such interpretations as reasonable would be equally strong. And, of course, they would be entirely incorrect as well.
Agreed. However, based on the inductive evidence available for both concepts, I'm orders of magnitude more willing to surmise that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow than I am to surmise that the brain and the mind are one and the same.
As I understand it, we're exploring areas of agreement and disagreement. You've been entirely polite and respectful, you raise interesting points of discussion, don't say things like well, you're wrong because you are, and avoid arguing logical fallacies as obvious fact. Thanks for all that.
Well, one could argue that the evidence in place doesn't truly support the conclusion that the entire Universe is billions of years old, either. What if it was all created only last Thursday, and it just FEELS like we have memories before that time period?
It might be more accurate to argue that thoughts are mappable to PATTERNS of neuron firings. The specific neurons used are generally less important. Though the brain region might be, depending on the circumstances of the thoughts.
The first I learned about experiments with emotional illusions was from the book Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior by Leonard Mlodinow. He covers it in chapter 9.
What physical forms would the "rooms" take? (At least hypothetically.)
This oddly sounds like you are reinventing Homunculus Theory. If I am wrong, explain how this is different. If that assessment right, how do you resolve the problems of infinite regression?
That is probably only because you haven't read up on all of the knowledge we've gained about the brain, so far. We know a LOT more about how the brain works, how emotions work, how thoughts work, how consciousness arises, than most people realize. Granted, we do NOT know everything. But, everything we DO know points quite explicitly with the brain and the mind being one in the same.
You mean like this: A room is consciousness. What perceives the room as a room is consciousness, which since it is consciousness is in a room. Like that?
