Brain, Mind & Neuroscience

[inocente]

Now, there are certainly philosophers out there who claim to have no problem with this. But my humble opinion is that they have only succeeded in kicking the can down the road. The problem is at bottom a metaphysical one: without ‘form’, or something like it, nothing whatsoever - not even a quark or an electron - can be a unit, for even these perdure and exhibit contrary states (now in this position, now in that one, now at this velocity, now at that one).

So if we are forced by our experience to admit forms-and-substances at the level of the quark, by what prejudice do we reject it at the level of the mind? To the objection that brain damage leads to alteration in personality and cognitive functioning we might say: of course you don’t have a complete/whole mind here, because you don’t have a complete brain. Aristotle would describe the loss of essential attributes here as a privation. And incomplete brain cannot be a fully actual brain.

One possibility for form of the mind is on these lines.

We can’t describe the form of an elephant in terms of its constituent quarks and electrons, yet we can describe the elephant by progressing through levels (atoms, chemicals, cells, fauna, etc.).

In the same way it’s almost certainly naive to expect that we can describe the mind in terms of neurons and electro-chemicals, we more likely need to model patterns of firing neurons, then patterns of those patterns, and so on to reach to the form of the mind.

 

[Sair]

One possibility for form of the mind is on these lines.

We can’t describe the form of an elephant in terms of its constituent quarks and electrons, yet we can describe the elephant by progressing through levels (atoms, chemicals, cells, fauna, etc.).

In the same way it’s almost certainly naive to expect that we can describe the mind in terms of neurons and electro-chemicals, we more likely need to model patterns of firing neurons, then patterns of those patterns, and so on to reach to the form of the mind.

That makes a lot of sense, and in a way undermines the idea that neuroscience (or, indeed, the entire philosophical position of physicalism itself) is inherently reductionist (regardless of how it may be interpreted by some adherents and critics alike). It may well be fair to say that minds would not exist without neurons - but clearly it takes more than just a single neuron, or a random cluster of neurons, to give rise to a mind.

It may be - just to throw an idea out there - that the “emergentists” are right, and that minds are physically manifested by complex arrangements and interactions of atoms, molecules, cells, electical and chemical impulses; in much the same way as the entire intricate and beautiful (and, yes, even sometimes discordant and wholly unappealing) edifice of music is built upon the necessary foundation of sound waves, manifested by vibrations travelling through matter - without the matter, there would be no sound waves, and without the sound waves, there would be no music; but music, as such, is not reducible to the matter through which the sound waves travel, even if it may be described and explained entirely in terms of these phenomena.

 

[meltzerboy]

That makes a lot of sense, and in a way undermines the idea that neuroscience (or, indeed, the entire philosophical position of physicalism itself) is inherently reductionist (regardless of how it may be interpreted by some adherents and critics alike). It may well be fair to say that minds would not exist without neurons - but clearly it takes more than just a single neuron, or a random cluster of neurons, to give rise to a mind.

It may be - just to throw an idea out there - that the “emergentists” are right, and that minds are physically manifested by complex arrangements and interactions of atoms, molecules, cells, electical and chemical impulses; in much the same way as the entire intricate and beautiful (and, yes, even sometimes discordant and wholly unappealing) edifice of music is built upon the necessary foundation of sound waves, manifested by vibrations travelling through matter - without the matter, there would be no sound waves, and without the sound waves, there would be no music; but music, as such, is not reducible to the matter through which the sound waves travel, even if it may be described and explained entirely in terms of these phenomena.

I like your analogy to music. And of course it is the mind of the listener which interprets the sound, as well as the silence, the rests between the notes. There is a specialty field called the psychology of music that studies such things.

Where do you think metacognition (and metamemory) fit into this discussion of the mind? That is, thinking and reflecting about our own thought processes.

 

[levinas12]

It may be - just to throw an idea out there - that the “emergentists” are right, and that minds are physically manifested by complex arrangements and interactions of atoms, molecules, cells, electical and chemical impulses; in much the same way as the entire intricate and beautiful (and, yes, even sometimes discordant and wholly unappealing) edifice of music is built upon the necessary foundation of sound waves, manifested by vibrations travelling through matter - without the matter, there would be no sound waves, and without the sound waves, there would be no music; but music, as such, is not reducible to the matter through which the sound waves travel, even if it may be described and explained entirely in terms of these phenomena.

Imagine someone goes into a museum and does a chemical analysis of a Rembrandt portrait. And never realizes it’s a portrait and a Rembrandt to boot.

Of course, the portrait is the paint. But a chemical analysis alone would fail to reveal that the paint is really a portrait.

Farfetched? Well, maybe not. It is possible to do a neurological analysis of brain activities without realizing that we are dealing with a “person”.

This does not mean that the “person” is some mysterious ectoplasm, or an immaterial entity, in addition to the body. No, the person and the human body are the same. But the meaning of a human body is quite extraordinary because it “discloses” a “person” just as the paint “discloses” Rembrandt.

 

[inocente]

It may be - just to throw an idea out there - that the “emergentists” are right, and that minds are physically manifested by complex arrangements and interactions of atoms, molecules, cells, electical and chemical impulses; in much the same way as the entire intricate and beautiful (and, yes, even sometimes discordant and wholly unappealing) edifice of music is built upon the necessary foundation of sound waves, manifested by vibrations travelling through matter - without the matter, there would be no sound waves, and without the sound waves, there would be no music; but music, as such, is not reducible to the matter through which the sound waves travel, even if it may be described and explained entirely in terms of these phenomena.

Of course emergence is right, we’re invincible.

I like the link with music, but don’t think we should think of it in terms of atoms or cells. A really rough analogy (so rough it may mislead) is with the cellular automata below - really it’s only pixels switching black or white according to a set of rules, but this forms moving patterns which are, as it were, entities in their own right. So in modelling thought, perhaps patterns of firing neurons form such “entities” which represent “thought atoms” and they in turn form patterns which are “thought phrases”. I made my head hurt now.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

 

[WillP]

Can anyone here refer me to some books recently written that explains the difference between the brain and the mind? If I’m understanding the topic correctly, we are to believe that the brain and mind are entirely two different entities, yet, with the little I know about neuroscience, and I’ll admit, I know very little, this seems to be an impossibility. I’m trying to understand this and am doing a poor job of it.

Can anyone here refer me to some books recently written that explains the difference between the brain and the mind? If I’m understanding the topic correctly, we are to believe that the brain and mind are entirely two different entities, yet, with the little I know about neuroscience, and I’ll admit, I know very little, this seems to be an impossibility. I’m trying to understand this and am doing a poor job of it.

I wish I knew what people mean when they refer to the soul. I understand “brain”.I even understand “mind” as it means the disposition of the brain’s activity (eg. “to change one’s mind” or to" make up one’s mind" about this or that proposition.)

That being said, what exactly is a soul? Doesn’t all functioning simply shut down at death? What is there that survives death? Certainly you can’t seriously believe that one’s personality survives death anymore than it can survive Alzheimer’s or a frontal lobotomy—hence, don’t you agree that all mental processes shut down at death? And don’t you then have to agree that “soul” has no real referent?

 

[tonyrey]

I’ll take my +5 scythe of cutting to the chase and ask: what’s the research program for verifying that the mind is a supernatural phenomenon?

Those who believe the mind is a subnatural phenomenon cannot have a research programme because they believe they are programmed by subnatural events to reject any other explanation but subnatural events! A delightful spectacle…

 

[tonyrey]

I wish I knew what people mean when they refer to the soul. I understand “brain”.I even understand “mind” as it means the disposition of the brain’s activity (eg. “to change one’s mind” or to" make up one’s mind" about this or that proposition.)

That being said, what exactly is a soul? Doesn’t all functioning simply shut down at death? What is there that survives death? Certainly you can’t seriously believe that one’s personality survives death anymore than it can survive Alzheimer’s or a frontal lobotomy—hence, don’t you agree that all mental processes shut down at death? And don’t you then have to agree that “soul” has no real referent?

Certainly you can’t seriously believe your conclusions are determined by "the disposition of the brain’s activity" thereby rendering you utterly incapable of making any decisions for yourself?!

 

[tonyrey]

Of course emergence is right, we’re invincible.

Invincible atoms!

I like the link with music, but don’t think we should think of it in terms of atoms or cells. A really rough analogy (so rough it may mislead) is with the cellular automata below - really it’s only pixels switching black or white according to a set of rules, but this forms moving patterns which are, as it were, entities in their own right. So in modelling thought, perhaps patterns of firing neurons form such “entities” which represent “thought atoms” and they in turn form patterns which are “thought phrases”. I made my head hurt now.

That is hardly surprising. A collection of events within the skull doesn’t constitute a rational entity. The atomistic view of reality - including the mind inevitably reduces it to absurdity - as Camus and Sartre were not slow to realise.

Materialists who console themselves with the thought that eventually subnatural events will produce an explanation of themselves - which liberates them from all objective moral principles and all obligations to any higher authority. In their scheme of things** neurotransmitter imbalances within the brain** must be the main causes of all psychiatric conditions.

Given that the mind is merely is a product of electrical impulses how could it possibly be anything other than disruptions of the required currents and voltages? Unless some scientific genius succeeds in explaining** the precise physical mechanism **by which such a feat is accomplished it is inevitable that materialists will continue to be afflicted by severe headaches…

 

[WillP]

Certainly you can’t seriously believe your conclusions are determined by "the disposition of the brain’s activity" thereby rendering you utterly incapable of making any decisions for yourself?!

As a matter of fact, there are neurologsts who have an emprical basis for the hypothesis that free will is an illusion. So, if that proves up, then I would have to say yes to your question.

Regardless, “consciousness” and the concept of a “subjetive self” are incrediblly complex and not easily understood by any of us. I do not, however, think that any form of mysticism will ever adequately yield fulfilling answers.

 

[tonyrey]

As a matter of fact, there are neurologsts who have an emprical basis for the hypothesis that free will is an illusion. So, if that proves up, then I would have to say yes to your question.

Evidence?

Regardless, “consciousness” and the concept of a “subjetive self” are incrediblly complex and not easily understood by any of us.

Incredible complexity is compelling evidence for Design rather than Chance…

I do not, however, think that any form of mysticism will ever adequately yield fulfilling answers.

Only facts - not opinions - further the discussion!

 

[levinas12]

Regardless, “consciousness” and the concept of a “subjetive self” are incrediblly complex and not easily understood by any of us. I do not, however, think that any form of mysticism will ever adequately yield fulfilling answers.

Whatever is happening neurologically in the brain, it’s an activity that “discloses” a world.

This sense of consciousness as “disclosure” is sometimes eclipsed in discussions of neurological activity.

But “disclosure” is the sine qua non - without it, we wouldn’t even be talking about the brain.

 

[meltzerboy]

As a matter of fact, there are neurologsts who have an emprical basis for the hypothesis that free will is an illusion. So, if that proves up, then I would have to say yes to your question.

Regardless, “consciousness” and the concept of a “subjetive self” are incrediblly complex and not easily understood by any of us. I do not, however, think that any form of mysticism will ever adequately yield fulfilling answers.

Which neurologists are these? If free will is a perceptual illusion (and not delusion), then it exists in the mind, whether or not in reality, the same as other perceptual phenomena. If it exists as such, then we can act on it. Welcome to psychology!

 

[WillP]

Evidence?

Incredible complexity is compelling evidence for Design rather than Chance…

Only facts - not opinions - further the discussion!

On the contrary. Complexity is usually an emergent property in nature. Ant colonies, for example. There is no head engineer ant is there? So where does that design come from?

Snowflakes certainly yield complex designs which emerge from the simple to the highly decorative and, indeed, aesthically appealing.

If nature itself furnishes a rationale for complexity, what need is there to endow that natural process with a personality as you do? Hence, in light of the progress made over the last several decades in the natural sciences, I think you need a better argument than the “watchmaker in the forest”.

 

[CopticChristian]

Can anyone here refer me to some books recently written that explains the difference between the brain and the mind? If I’m understanding the topic correctly, we are to believe that the brain and mind are entirely two different entities, yet, with the little I know about neuroscience, and I’ll admit, I know very little, this seems to be an impossibility. I’m trying to understand this and am doing a poor job of it.

Faith,

Youtube has a 6 hour series on the BBC “The Story of the Brain”…you will find the entire series fascinating…I have seen this attempt to distinguish brain and mind. Good luck…

 

[CopticChristian]

I like your analogy to music. And of course it is the mind of the listener which interprets the sound, as well as the silence, the rests between the notes. There is a specialty field called the psychology of music that studies such things.

Where do you think metacognition (and metamemory) fit into this discussion of the mind? That is, thinking and reflecting about our own thought processes.

Meltz,

You have hit on the keystone of Neurosemantics. Self reflective thinking is the key to understanding how to run your brain. L. Michael Hall is the author of Users Manual of the Brain Volume I and II and his two primers for this topic are “Movie Mind” and “Secrets of Personal Mastery”…The former is how our brains work and the latter is how self reflective thinking allows us to access and manipulate our executive meta states, etc…

 

[CopticChristian]

I wish I knew what people mean when they refer to the soul. I understand “brain”.I even understand “mind” as it means the disposition of the brain’s activity (eg. “to change one’s mind” or to" make up one’s mind" about this or that proposition.)

That being said, what exactly is a soul? Doesn’t all functioning simply shut down at death? What is there that survives death? Certainly you can’t seriously believe that one’s personality survives death anymore than it can survive Alzheimer’s or a frontal lobotomy—hence, don’t you agree that all mental processes shut down at death? And don’t you then have to agree that “soul” has no real referent?

My understanding of this is that the body/soul are united. The faculties of the soul include intellect, passions, etc…those things you attribute to mind are faculties of the soul…this is from Aquinas…

This links explains this

psyking.net/id46.htm

 

[CopticChristian]

Which neurologists are these? If free will is a perceptual illusion (and not delusion), then it exists in the mind, whether or not in reality, the same as other perceptual phenomena. If it exists as such, then we can act on it. Welcome to psychology!

Meltz,

The BBC “The story of the Brain” has a segment on free will. Information comes in via the senses so fast that it is analyzed and decisions are made on memory and imagination that free will is a perception. There is also a work by Baumiester, Rediscovering our Forgotten strength. The former is scientific and Neurscience oriented and the latter is what it is, how we use it, when to use it, etc…it is also entertaining.

Below is the link for the BBC brain story complete series. The first is long and then they are in 10-15 minute segments. Good for late night watching.

youtube.com/view_play_list?src_vid=Q-FxmntWHvU&feature=iv&p=18D1C6A6672EE0D0&annotation_id=annotation_421891

 

[CopticChristian]

Anyone?

Faith I don’t understand what it is specifically you want to know. May I ask you to formulate a direct question.

 

[tonyrey]

Meltz,

The BBC “The story of the Brain” has a segment on free will. Information comes in via the senses so fast that it is analyzed and decisions are made on memory and imagination that free will is a perception. There is also a work by Baumiester, Rediscovering our Forgotten strength. The former is scientific and Neurscience oriented and the latter is what it is, how we use it, when to use it, etc…it is also entertaining.

Below is the link for the BBC brain story complete series. The first is long and then they are in 10-15 minute segments. Good for late night watching.

youtube.com/view_play_list?src_vid=Q-FxmntWHvU&feature=iv&p=18D1C6A6672EE0D0&annotation_id=annotation_421891

Perception is **not **the power to choose nor can it produce it.