A Scientific Theory Of Mind?

[tonyrey]

The law always lags behind technology. Movies highlight this, e.g., making the robot the “murder weapon” instead of the “murderer”.

In that case murderers will be able to get off scotfree on the plea “It was the robot that did it, not me.”! Thank God the law “lags behind” technology.

Okay, this is my position too, so I guess I’m in line with metaphysical reasoning.

That’s the best news I’ve heard for a long time!

However, I do think it is likely that scientists will produce intelligent, non-human life forms via genetic engineering, kind of like super IVF.

Your belief is based on the assumption that life and intelligence can in principle be explained mechanistically - which raises the problem of how purposeful activities can be derived from purposeless processes…

 

[Just_Lurking]

Your belief is based on the assumption that life and intelligence can in principle be explained mechanistically - which raises the problem of how purposeful activities can be derived from purposeless processes…

My belief is based on the success of existing IVF and genetic engineering procedures. The only thing missing is that scientists don’t know which genes to tweak yet, but research is progressing in that area at a rapid pace.

 

[Fran65]

My belief is based on the success of existing IVF and genetic engineering procedures. The only thing missing is that scientists don’t know which genes to tweak yet, but research is progressing in that area at a rapid pace.

Whilst IVF, other reproductive technologies and genetic engineering do indeed use the mechanics of creating life, they do not confer life.

The potential for life is already present in the egg and the sperm prior to the engineering taking place. Scientists, contrary to popular assumption do not ‘create’ life. They put egg and sperm together or introduce new genetic material into an existing (denucleated) egg. Whilst appearing impressive, this is not ‘creating life’.

Scientists have not explained where this life principle comes from, although they can describe the process of fertilisation, embryonic and foetal development and they can interfere mechanistically in that process.

 

[jimmy85]

Is the attempts to turn mind into a scientific theory Legitimate? Members of the science community want to explain everything in terms of physical causes.

However; human beings are intelligent causes. But i thought that Science was the study of natural causes? Given this premise, isn’t it a bit presumptuous and even invalid to think that science can unlock all the secrets of the mind?

I think that it might be explained at least in part as a scientific theory, but not for now.
Though a more subtle approach is to see the subject from the view of philosophy and of the philosophy of language. For instance the noises that we make when talking have a concept and a meaning, the same happens when we write a novel, it is jsut a bunch of letters but the abstract content it poses is what is meaningful. The blue of the sky, the sound of music, any feeling etc, is all caused by low level neuro impulses therefore it has to do with science but also with the subjuntive part of what these abstract concepts really are, which I think for now could be discussed in philosophy.

The fact that the low level neuro impulses create all this subjective and abstract reality is kind of nonsense, for instance to describe a simple sentence of a language in axiomatic set theory is very hard to do, yet kids learn to speak naturaly by listening and learning from the surrounding enviroment. This seems to show that the mind is not a Tabula rasa (blank slate) .
Therefore you cant explain conciousness using only empirical means like science or at least that is the case for now.
It implys more than just low level neuro impulses in order to explain meaning and abstraction.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Whilst IVF, other reproductive technologies and genetic engineering do indeed use the mechanics of creating life, they do not confer life.

The potential for life is already present in the egg and the sperm prior to the engineering taking place. Scientists, contrary to popular assumption do not ‘create’ life. They put egg and sperm together or introduce new genetic material into an existing (denucleated) egg. Whilst appearing impressive, this is not ‘creating life’.

Scientists have not explained where this life principle comes from, although they can describe the process of fertilisation, embryonic and foetal development and they can interfere mechanistically in that process.

My original point was that I think these experiments will produce intelligent, non-human life in the not-to-distant future. Based on your comments, I can’t tell if you agree or disagree with that.

 

[Fran65]

I think that it is more likely than not that we will manipulate genetic material and use other reproductive technologies to produce novel intelligent but non human life. Similarly, we are already developing highly intelligent and semi autonomous artificial systems using computer technologies and programming.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Your belief is based on the assumption that life and intelligence can in principle be explained mechanistically - which raises the problem of how purposeful activities can be derived from purposeless processes…

As Fran65 points out, I don’t think that scientists will be able to explain life and intelligence, just that they will be able to use existing genetic engineering technology to produce non-human intelligent life.

 

[tonyrey]

As Fran65 points out, I don’t think that scientists will be able to explain life and intelligence, just that they will be able to use existing genetic engineering technology to produce non-human intelligent life.

It seems possible if they are using living cells but that is a far cry from showing that science can unlock all the secrets of the mind.

 

[Old_Convert]

The idea of a scientific theory of the mind is really nothing new. Ralph Waldo Emerson came up with it in the 19th century when he broke with the Trinitarian Congregational Church and, for all intents and purposes, gave rise to the Unitarian Universalist sect.

In the 20th century the biggest proponent of the power of the mind over the body and spirit was Ernest Holmes who wrote a book called The Science of Mind and was the founder, almost by accident, of the sect known as Religious Science. Their ideas are definitely far out, and they probably can’t be considered Christian by any stretch of the imagination. Still, the book is an interesting view of the old idea of “mind over matter.” Has any one out there read it or had an experience with Religious Science (NOT to be confused, by the way, with Christian Science and Mary Baker Eddy - that is another ball game)? In my unfortunate years away from the Church, I took a long hard look at Religious Science and was pretty much taken in by it for a while. What we call the New Age Movement really started with Emerson, and Holmes is still a big influence on New Age thought. Religious Science would definitely fall under the New Age banner.

But nothing, NOTHING can hold a candle (pun intended) to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ on the Rock of Peter! Amen? Amen!

 

[tonyrey]

My belief is based on the success of existing IVF and genetic engineering procedures. The only thing missing is that scientists don’t know which genes to tweak yet, but research is progressing in that area at a rapid pace.

It remains to be explained how purposeful activities can be derived from purposeless processes. The genetic information system presupposes intelligence and purpose…

 

[severntofall]

Is the attempts to turn mind into a scientific theory Legitimate? Members of the science community want to explain everything in terms of physical causes.

However; human beings are intelligent causes. But i thought that Science was the study of natural causes? Given this premise, isn’t it a bit presumptuous and even invalid to think that science can unlock all the secrets of the mind?

Human behaviors have a physical cause; thus there is a science dedicated to understanding this reality. Where’s the contradiction? However you may be correct in that it may be impossible for science to unlock every secret.

Fact, a person’s personality can be massively altered (for good and/or bad) via medication and/or physical damage to the brain. Removing portions of a person’s brain has been demostated to alter that person’s entire personaility massively. We are what exists between our ears…nothing more.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Human behaviors have a physical cause; thus there is a science dedicated to understanding this reality. Where’s the contradiction? However you may be correct in that it may be impossible for science to unlock every secret.

Fact, a person’s personality can be massively altered (for good and/or bad) via medication and/or physical damage to the brain. Removing portions of a person’s brain has been demostated to alter that person’s entire personaility massively. We are what exists between our ears…nothing more.

Our experiences suggests otherwise. Saying that brain damage can alter our mind, and that therefore all actualities of mind is reducible to physical causes, is nothing more then a demonstration of the fallacy of composition. Id rather you didn’t assume that we are stupid. I know that we are physical beings and that physical events can have serious effects on us as well as influences. However, our experiences suggests explicitly that we are more then physical states, that we can induce physical states in ourselves. We can cause things. This self causality enables us to do science. Even more so we have immaterial ideas that cannot be measured or weighed and yet are never the less real.

What you have stated at the end of your post, was nothing more then you belief which ignores the experiential evidence, while my ideas are based on an explicit experience of the intellectual self. If you intend to reply, then i suggest that you at least acknowledge that there are experiences that we have which do not make sense in terms of physical cause and effect mechanisms. Otherwise please do not reply, as i do not think that you are honest about science or mind.

 

[Namesake]

Our experiences suggests otherwise. Saying that brain damage can alter our mind, and that therefore all actualities of mind is reducible to physical causes, is nothing more then a demonstration of the fallacy of composition. Id rather you didn’t assume that we are stupid. I know that we are physical beings and that physical events can have serious effects on us as well as influences. However, our experiences suggests explicitly that we are more then physical states, that we can induce physical states in ourselves. We can cause things. This self causality enables us to do science. Even more so we have immaterial ideas that cannot be measured or weighed and yet are never the less real.

What you have stated at the end of your post, was nothing more then you belief which ignores the experiential evidence, while my ideas are based on an explicit experience of the intellectual self. If you intend to reply, then i suggest that you at least acknowledge that there are experiences that we have which do not make sense in terms of physical cause and effect mechanisms. Otherwise please do not reply, as i do not think that you are honest about science or mind.

Just one detail in your writing that is a bit distracting. You use ‘then’, when ‘than’ would be correct. Just a clue to better grammar.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Just one detail in your writing that is a bit distracting. You use ‘then’, when ‘than’ would be correct. Just a clue to better grammar.

I will assume that this was a constructive criticism and was not a malicious attack on my level of intelligence. Thank you.

 

[Namesake]

I will assume that this was a constructive criticism and was not a malicious attack on my level of intelligence. Thank you.

Oh no, nothing malicious at all. It’s just such a common grammatical error that really ought to be corrected if your writing is to be taken seriously. Losing the oomph of your argument by making such glaring errors isn’t what you want to do, I am sure, and it’s so easy to prevent.

 

[severntofall]

Our experiences suggests otherwise. Saying that brain damage can alter our mind, and that therefore all actualities of mind is reducible to physical causes, is nothing more then a demonstration of the fallacy of composition. Id rather you didn’t assume that we are stupid. I know that we are physical beings and that physical events can have serious effects on us as well as influences. However, our experiences suggests explicitly that we are more then physical states, that we can induce physical states in ourselves. We can cause things. This self causality enables us to do science. Even more so we have immaterial ideas that cannot be measured or weighed and yet are never the less real.

Percieved self causality is what you observe; I have personally never had an experience that has led me to conclude otherwise. What do you mean by immaterial ideas?
MindOverMatter;5583760:

What you have stated at the end of your post, was nothing more then you belief which ignores the experiential evidence, while my ideas are based on an explicit experience of the intellectual self. If you intend to reply, then i suggest that you at least acknowledge that there are experiences that we have which do not make sense in terms of physical cause and effect mechanisms. Otherwise please do not reply, as i do not think that you are honest about science or mind.

What I said at the end of my post is what all evidence would lead us to believe. There certainly no evdeince of motivations or thoughts that exist outside of our physical brain. I would love an example of an expereicne that cannot be explained “in terms of physical cause and effect mechanisms”. I’m not even sure what you mean by this and I’m not sure that you are either.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Perceived self causality is what you observe.

Yes i perceive self causality and intellect; i certainly do not perceive the opposite. Until you prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe that we do not have self causality and intellect. We all suppose that we do when we engage in intellectual activity, just as much as we suppose that the physical universe exists outside of our mind, and it is reasonable to think so, since thats our experience. All epistemological experience begins with the mind , intellect and the “will” to knowledge, not the processes of the brain. We explicitly experience mind along with the actualities of mind (free acts) before we experience physical reality. Epistemologically speaking we have only the knowledge of mind and our will to act. Thus, I would say that the experiential-evidence of personal experience in itself (mind) has more authoritative significance than the object of our experiences. It would certainly be impossible to choose between truth and falsity if our thoughts and choices are caused by chemical reactions. This very debate would be pointless and meaningless since there would not really be a debate, but just cause, effect, and chemical reactions. In fact the creation of this thread presupposes that we do have intellects and freewill.

Of coarse you have to ignore and undervalue experience, because it flies in the face of your arguments.

There certainly no evidence of motivations or thoughts that exist outside of our physical brain. I would love an example of an experience that cannot be explained “in terms of physical cause and effect mechanisms”. I’m not even sure what you mean by this and I’m not sure that you are either.

Read a book called spiritual brain if you are really interested. harpercollins.com/books/9780060858834/The_Spiritual_Brain/index.aspx

 

[severntofall]

Yes i perceive self causality and intellect; i certainly do not perceive the opposite. Until you prove otherwise, there is no reason to believe that we do not have self causality and intellect.

We need a definition here first. What are considering self causality? If it’s just taking action to pursue one’s own perceived desires and interests then I’m not sure I would say it doesn’t exist. Nor would I say that it’s existence contradicts my earlier claims. Intellect certainly exists but I’m not sure how it’s existence contradicts anything I’ve said. One thing’s for certain, you can destroy certain parts of the human brain that will reduce or eliminate that person’s intellect without killing the individual (that’s what profound retardation is)…every neurologists in the world could tell you that. Intellect is essential nothing more that the ability to observe a relationship between cause and effect (as well as the ability to comprehend abstract concepts). There is absolutely no denying that thought and intellect are directly tied to physical brain activity; however what there is no evidence of is this notion there is some additional non-physical aspect to thought or rationality. You seem to be arguing that the very existence of perceived self-causality and intellect is all the evidence you need to prove your point, and that’s just bogus. You may choose to argue that the existence of a god is the reason our brains are capable of such activity, but that’s just speculation on your part.
MindOverMatter;5584170:

We all suppose that we do when we engage in intellectual activity, just as much as we suppose that the physical universe exists outside of our mind, and it is reasonable to think so, since thats our experience

. All epistemological experience begins with the mind , intellect and the “will” to knowledge, not the processes of the brain. We explicitly experience mind along with the actualities of mind (free acts) before we experience physical reality.

Going to need an example, as I’m not sure what you mean here. I may actually agree with you. Certainly some intellectual concepts exist independent of experience (e.g. god, rights, etc), if that’s what you mean but I’m not sure how that would prove your point.

Epistemologically speaking we have only the knowledge of mind and our will to act.

I guess if you existed as brain in a bottle with no physical experiences this statement would true; however I know based upon experience that when I touch what I understand to be fire, I get burned.

Thus, I would say that the experiential-evidence of personal experience in itself (mind) has more authoritative significance than

the object of our experiences.

The experiences of a neurologists are if a persons cerebral cortex is destroyed, then their intellect goes bye-bye. A person’s lack of knowledge of this fact does not make it false.

It would certainly be impossible to choose between truth and falsity if our thoughts and choices are caused by chemical reactions.

Why? The fact that I choose to believe that “the sun is hot” is a true statement is in no way evidence of a non-physical component to our intellect. IMO, this seems a rather random assertion.

This very debate would be pointless and meaningless since there would not really be a debate, but just cause, effect, and chemical reactions. In fact the creation of this thread presupposes that we do have intellects and freewill.

I can find no basis for these assertions (which is all they are). You again seem to be arguing that our ability to even engage in a discussion is proof of a non-physical component to thought and I can think of no good reason for such a claim. It’s hard to disprove a conclusion when the premises used to lead to it seem to be completely unrelated. You argument is basically one unsubstantiated assertion after the other. Again, the existence of the intellect is proof of nothing more than the existence of the intellect; however the advances in the neurological sciences demonstrate that thought (all thought) is correlated to brain activity. I understand that you wish there was more to it, but the evidence is simply not on your side.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I can find no basis for these assertions (which is all they are).

We can let others be the judge of that.

Firstly if one cannot see why there is a problem in asserting the existence of intentional relationships and purpose driven conversation on a foundation of non-intellectual inert purposeless chemical reactions, then it is not possible that we are going to come to any kind of agreement, since you are adamant on claiming that everything we do and say and comprehend is the soul creation of chemical reactions and processes in the brain, rather then intelligence. We cannot have intentional and intellectual-driven debates about truth with out freedom and transcendence.

Secondly it has been explained to you that nobody denies that there is a relationship between a fully working mind and a fully functioning brain. I have not denied that we need a brain to think, and yet you seem to ignore this fact. You are claiming that the relationship between the mind and the brain necessarily makes them synonymous. I have given arguments that strongly suggest otherwise. You have shown your disagreements, but they do not amount to anything more then describing the close relationship between a working brain and a working mind. A relationship is not proof of a physical mind. On the face of it, when one takes it for granted, it is easy to assume that the mind and the brain are the same, but it still remains the fact that we have many experiences that contradict this arguement. You wish to ignore these experiences in favor of your world-view, and yet you do not understand that inorder for your world view to take place “intellectually”, rather then being the dictates of blind purposeless atoms, you would need to transcend the inert casual sequences of your brain inorder to be an intelligent cause of your arguement. You claim that science is important; but its only important to those who can freely practice it and understand it, and scientists practice and understand science with the understanding that they are freely and intentionally working toward such ends with a specific purpose in view. Such a view is completely meaningless when given a science of mind that would wish to reduce a person to blind and purposeless causes.

I don’t know what to say, accept to say that this is my last post to you, and please read that book as it does refute allot of your ideas using current and provable scientific advances in neuro-science. Please don’t make another post if its going to be an exact duplicate of your last post, as i already understand your point of view, and you haven’t answered any of my arguments.

Thanks for the debate.

 

[tonyrey]

We are what exists between our ears…nothing more.

In that case “we” don’t exist. There is no entity we call the self. There is just a multitude of physical events. Thoughts, choices and decisions are merely descriptions of physical events which have physical causes. Freedom and responsibility must be illusions…

But there is a problem. If thoughts are determined by previous events what guarantee is there that they correspond to reality?