Can there be a Mind Without Parts (From "the one fact..." thread)

[Pieman333272]

I think one thing you may have been attempting to address has to do with evidence for models (or principles) versus evidence for entities. Would you say that that is accurate?

I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean the standard for evidence is different? Am I trying to address that? Or something else?

 

[TruthSeeker60]

my point was - and is - that you have made the assertion that the mind does not exist without providing a shred of evidence…

I haven’t claimed that no mind exists. Rather, I have stated over and over again that no evidence has been presented that an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain actually exists. If you tell me that an invisible, intangible fairy made the world beautiful, and I tell you that I don’t accept your claim, I don’t need to give a shred of evidence for the non-existence of an invisible, intangible fairy, but rather you need to give evidence for the existence of an invisible, intangible fairy. You have been avoiding doing that with an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain, which you claim actually exists.

Now will you stop attacking strawmen. I’m assuming you’re not that stupid, so I’m let to believe that you’re intentionally attacking strawmen.

You have continued to ignore the fact that the term “you” is not generally identified with a** body**…

The fact that people like you, Tonyrey, use the word “you” to refer to some intangible, conscious entity that uses the body, without evidence that this thing exists, is irrelevant to whether this thing actually exists.

People don’t usually say things like “your body is having a heart attack” or “his body is bleeding”, but rather typically say “he is having a heart attack” or “he is bleeding”. Considering this, I think that how you think that the word “you” is typically used may not be how it is actually typically used.

And you have failed to explain how the lump of tissue inside your skull does everything that is attributed to the mind - such as grasp abstract ideas and control itself.

I haven’t attempted to do that because I haven’t meant to do that! You are asserting that there is an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain without any evidence. How is that any more satisfactory than all of the verified facts found in neuroscience textbooks?

 

[Pieman333272]

Even if organized complexity of all matter and energy (or “the universe”) somehow proved that all matter and energy were designed, we don’t know what non-material, non-energy entities that actually exist independent of minds would be like. In other words, we cannot assume that a non-material, non-energy being lacks parts. We need to know enough about it before concluding that it does, indeed, lack parts.

This is an interesting point, but I think in this case some of the BOP falls on you in the sense that you have to explain why it makes sense for something immaterial to have multiple parts. The problem I see is, if it is indeed proven or probable that the universe is designed by an intelligent, immaterial designer, that so long as it can bear those traits in one part or no parts it most probably does - it’s Occam’s Razor, really. It’s also one of the reasons the cosmological argument is much more difficult to use to defend polytheism.

What you wrote also says that the designer is a conscious, or intelligent designer on the assumption that the universe was done right. What might a universe that was made wrong look like?

A universe which cannot support conscious material life. If you try to pull the “egocentric” card, the goal is conscious and complex material life in general, not humans specifically.

The universe we live in is extremely hostile to life with exceptions a tiny percentage of the time.

That is correct, but the fact that conscious and complex life is even *possible *in this universe signifies that it has some very specific variables set just right.

What if every universe that could exist does, and the mere fact that we exist just means that we must already be in one of those universes?

1. 
   *]A multiverse is only pushing the problem back because not only must it be fine-tuned to stably support all of the universes inside it but it must allow every possible variable to be covered by the universes it contains.
   *]Every possible world existing actually harms the atheist position because that means God exists in one of them. Since God is a necessary being, however, He actually exists in all possible worlds and, ergo, exists in this world.
   *] Aside from those, the idea of every possible world actually existing is absurd, because we have no idea if a universe could even survive under some of these variables changing.
   *]Finally, every possible world existing grants an extraordinarily high probability that we are living in a simulated reality.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

You are expert at making yourself invulnerable because you claim the onus is on you to demonstrate nothing as if everything is self-evident!

You are an expert at using strawmen. If you keep intentionally doing it, I’ll report you to the mods (intentionally using strawmen is very inconsiderate).

Even putting grammatical issues (“you are expert”) aside, you are making assertions unjustified by evidence, while I’m being humble enough to only make assertions that I’m prepared to justify by evidence. In other words, you seem to be ruthlessly making baseless assumptions because you don’t like uncertainty, while I’m willing to wait until I understand that sufficient evidence is found before I make a claim about reality.

Has it not occurred to you that your rejection of the mind

I haven’t said there is no “mind”, I have said that I don’t accept what you label a “mind” (an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain ) due to lack of evidence. I may accept, due to evidence, that there is such a thing as a “mind” if by “mind” one means a self-aware entity without assuming whether or not it is tangible (as you have done).

And - once again - you have failed to explain how the lump of tissue inside your skull does everything that is attributed to the mind - such as grasp abstract ideas and control itself.

I haven’t attempted to do that because I haven’t meant to do that! You are asserting that there is an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain without any evidence. How is that any more satisfactory than all of the verified facts found in neuroscience textbooks?

 

[tonyrey]

my point was - and is - that you have made the assertion that the mind does not exist without providing a shred of evidence…
I haven’t claimed that no mind exists. Rather, I have stated over and over again that no evidence has been presented that an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain actually exists. If you tell me that an invisible, intangible fairy made the world beautiful, and I tell you that I don’t accept your claim, I don’t need to give a shred of evidence for the non-existence of an invisible, intangible fairy, but rather you need to give evidence for the existence of an invisible, intangible fairy. You have been avoiding doing that with an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain, which you claim actually exists.

I haven’t attempted to do that because I haven’t meant to do that! Because you are incapable…

You are asserting that there is an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain without any evidence. How is that any more satisfactory than all of the verified facts found in neuroscience textbooks?

Do the verified facts found in neuroscience textbooks account for consciousness, free will, moral responsibility, abstract reasoning, the capacity for love, the principles of science and the mind of the neuroscientist? Your blind faith in the power of neuroscience is touching but unfortunately for you completely unjustified…

[/QUOTE]

 

[TruthSeeker60]

TruthSeeker60;7808648:

People don’t usually say things like “your body is having a heart attack” or “his body is bleeding”, but rather typically say “he is having a heart attack” or “he is bleeding”. Considering this, I think that how you think that the word “you” is typically used may not be how it is actually typically used.

Nor do they say “Your body (or brain) is making a decision” or “Your body (or brain) is morally responsible” or “I am deeply in love with your body - including your brain, of course - even though you are mindless!”

Perhaps that’s because when “you” and “your body” refers to the same thing, it’s easier to say “you”, which is why people will more often say “you are bleeding” rather than “your body is bleeding”.

But this is all beside the point because even if most people think that there is some intangible entity that is “you” does not mean it is true. Popularity does not reverse the burden of proof, although you’ve tried to do that in a previous thread.

TruthSeeker60;7808648:

tonyrey;7808439:

And you have failed to explain how the lump of tissue inside your skull does everything that is attributed to the mind - such as grasp abstract ideas and control itself.

I haven’t attempted to do that because I haven’t meant to do that! You are asserting that there is an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain without any evidence. How is that any more satisfactory than all of the verified facts found in neuroscience textbooks?

Because you are incapable…

Are you any more capable of demonstrating that an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain is any more responsible for conscious activity than the brain than what has been discovered by neuroscience? I mean, you keep on reflecting it back to me to prove everything regarding consciousness, while you are the one who claims to have an explanation for everything regarding consciousness!

Do the verified facts found in neuroscience textbooks account for consciousness, free will, moral responsibility, abstract reasoning, the capacity for love, the principles of science and the mind of the neuroscientist? Your blind faith in the power of neuroscience is touching but unfortunately for you completely unjustified…

Does merely asserting the existence of an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain without evidence explain any of those things in a more satisfactory way than all of what has been found by studying neuroscience?

Seriously, Tonyrey, your repeated attempts to reverse the burden of proof are getting boring. If you claim that there is an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain, you better have evidence for your claim.

 

[TruthSeeker60]

This is an interesting point, but I think in this case some of the BOP falls on you in the sense that you have to explain why it makes sense for something immaterial to have multiple parts.

You assumed, while attempting to demonstrate what you believe, that an immaterial entity must have no parts. Pointing out that this is an assumption that needs to be justified does not put any burden of proof on me.

The problem I see is, if it is indeed proven or probable that the universe is designed by an intelligent, immaterial designer, that so long as it can bear those traits in one part or no parts it most probably does - it’s Occam’s Razor, really.

Occam’s razor is the rule of thumb that when there are competing hypotheses, the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions, when all other hypotheses are equal in other respects, is the one that one is recommended to select. In the above statement, you had to make the assumption, “so long as it can bear those traits in one part or no parts”. Thus Occam’s razor would not recommend selecting the hypothesis of a being with one or no parts even if one demonstrated that the universe was designed by an intelligent, immaterial designer.

TruthSeeker60;7808494:

What you wrote also says that the designer is a conscious, or intelligent designer on the assumption that the universe was done right. What might a universe that was made wrong look like?

A universe which cannot support conscious material life. If you try to pull the “egocentric” card, the goal is conscious and complex material life in general, not humans specifically.

I’m not convinced of your assumption that the fact that the universe is 99.99999999999+% hostile to life, rather than absolutely hostile to life, is evidence that if there is a creator of the universe, it must be a conscious, or intelligent, designer.

That is correct, but the fact that conscious and complex life is even *possible *in this universe signifies that it has some very specific variables set just right.

Variables are set in one specific combination that can support life, but the question is whether this is due to natural phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon (such as a mind with no parts that created the universe), or another option?

TruthSeeker60;7808494:

What you wrote also says that the designer is a conscious, or intelligent designer on the assumption that the universe was done right. . . .] What if every universe that could exist does, and the mere fact that we exist just means that we must already be in one of those universes?

1. 
   *]A multiverse is only pushing the problem back because not only must it be fine-tuned to stably support all of the universes inside it but it must allow every possible variable to be covered by the universes it contains.

1. 
   Perhaps it may be that a multiverse doesn’t need to be fine-tuned (or is self-fine tuned if that makes sense). I’m not asserting that that is the case, I’m only suggesting it as a hypothetical alternative to an assumption that was made.
   

   Every possible world existing actually harms the atheist position because that means God exists in one of them. Since God is a necessary being, however, He actually exists in all possible worlds and, ergo, exists in this world.

   I’m not buying this assumption that a mind without parts that created the universe (or “god”) cannot not exist. If you want to include “must necessarily exist” into the definition of a “god”, you would have to demonstrate that not only does an all-powerful mind without parts exist, but it must exist by necessity.
   

   Aside from those, the idea of every possible world actually existing is absurd, because we have no idea if a universe could even survive under some of these variables changing.

   We also have no idea if a mind without parts can create a universe. We are largely dealing with the unknown when we talk about how the universe exists as it does. There are some hypothetical explanations, but none of them should be believed without sufficient evidence.
   

   Finally, every possible world existing grants an extraordinarily high probability that we are living in a simulated reality.

   I’m note quite sure how one would logically reach that conclusion from the premise.

 

[Pieman333272]

You assumed, while attempting to demonstrate what you believe, that an immaterial entity must have no parts. Pointing out that this is an assumption that needs to be justified does not put any burden of proof on me.

An immaterial entity lacks parts because it is one. The immaterial aspect is, by definition, its essence, its singular, not splitt up, essence.

Occam’s razor is the rule of thumb that when there are competing hypotheses, the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions, when all other hypotheses are equal in other respects, is the one that one is recommended to select. In the above statement, you had to make the assumption, “so long as it can bear those traits in one part or no parts”. Thus Occam’s razor would not recommend selecting the hypothesis of a being with one or no parts even if one demonstrated that the universe was designed by an intelligent, immaterial designer.

But you have failed to give reason to assume the immaterial is in parts! It seems you think that because you take the negative position it means you don’t have to prove anything. That is false. You have to, in this case, prove why it makes sense for an immaterial essence to be made up of parts and why that is somehow more probable than one part. Until then, we’re even.

Variables are set in one specific combination that can support life, but the question is whether this is due to natural phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon (such as a mind with no parts that created the universe), or another option?

Yes.

Perhaps it may be that a multiverse doesn’t need to be fine-tuned (or is self-fine tuned if that makes sense). I’m not asserting that that is the case, I’m only suggesting it as a hypothetical alternative to an assumption that was made.

Well, how about the slow roll of bubble universes to stop universes from colliding? Is that not fine-tuned to some extent? (I admit this fails to defeat your idea of a self-fine-tuned multiverse)

I’m not buying this assumption that a mind without parts that created the universe (or “god”) cannot not exist.

Are you trying to say you believe a mind without parts is impossible? Boy, the BOP is sure on you for THAT one!

I’m note quite sure how one would logically reach that conclusion from the premise.

If every possible world exits then certainly multiple of them hold intelligent life (if not your argument is non-applicable). Certainly, then, considering the vast technological capabilities of computer science, at least one of these societies would make a way to simulate reality. Because those are much easier to make, and there are very many (possibly infinitly) possible worlds with both intelligent life and computer science at this level, then the amount of simulated realities would be exponentially larger than the amount of real ones. Therefore, it is much more probable that we are living in a simulated reality rather than a real one.

…if there is a world for every possible one, that is.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I hate to be pedantic, but this doesn’t tell me much. “Be” and “exist” are both usually defined by using each other. Perhaps it would be more useful to look at how you determine whether or not a thing exists…

Definitions are generally tautological. Nor is any method of determination germane to the question of whether or not “detectable in reality” is logically necessary to existence.

If by “be” or “exist” one means “manifests in reality in some detectable way,” then it does.

 

[Peepers]

Hmmph. I can barely comprehend some of the theories now in Physics concerning alternate dimensions in time and space. I think that trying to imagine the “mind” of God, if such a thing as we conceive it can be talked about, is nothing more than engaging in fantasy and speculation. How can we possibly know such a thing?

 

[tonyrey]

People don’t usually say things like “your body is having a heart attack” or “his body is bleeding”, but rather typically say “he is having a heart attack” or “he is bleeding”. Considering this, I think that how you think that the word “you” is typically used may not be how it is actually typically used.

Nor do they say “Your body (or brain) is making a decision” or “Your body (or brain) is morally responsible” or "I am deeply in love with your body - including your brain, of course - even though you are mindless!"Perhaps that’s because when “you” and “your body” refers to the same thing, it’s easier to say “you”, which is why people will more often say “you are bleeding” rather than “your body is bleeding”.

Your “perhaps” is significant!

But this is all beside the point because even if most people think that there is some intangible entity that is “you” does not mean it is true. Popularity does not reverse the burden of proof, although you’ve tried to do that in a previous thread.

I have pointed out that the general consensus is taken in conjunction with cogent reasons.

And you have failed to explain how the lump of tissue inside your skull does everything that is attributed to the mind - such as grasp abstract ideas and control itself.

I haven’t attempted to do that because I haven’t meant to do that!

One is tempted to think you cannot…

You are asserting that there is an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain without any evidence. How is that any more satisfactory than all of the verified facts found in neuroscience textbooks?

Materialism is a rarity in the history of civilisation because, as the rapid demise of logical positivism demonstrates, it presupposes the use of abstract principles that cannot be verified by sense observation.

Are you any more capable of demonstrating that an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain is any more responsible for conscious activity than the brain than what has been discovered by neuroscience? I mean, you keep on reflecting it back to me to prove everything regarding consciousness, while you are the one who claims to have an explanation for everything regarding consciousness!

An exaggeration! I am simply pointing out the most adequate explanation of intangible, conscious, purposeful minds is an intangible, conscious, purposeful Being rather than tangible objects which lack consciousness or purpose.

Do the verified facts found in neuroscience textbooks account for consciousness, free will, moral responsibility, abstract reasoning, the capacity for love, the principles of science and the mind of the neuroscientist? Your blind faith in the power of neuroscience is touching but unfortunately for you completely unjustified…

Does merely asserting the existence of an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain without evidence explain any of those things in a more satisfactory way than all of what has been found by studying neuroscience?

It is not a mere assertion but a detailed and coherent explanation of the power of the mind which is responsible for the amazing success of science, the discovery and formulation of the principles on which science is based and the basis of all philosophical reasoning - including your conclusion that the mind is no more than the activity of a tangible brain!

Seriously, Tonyrey, your repeated attempts to reverse the burden of proof are getting boring. If you claim that there is an intangible conscious entity that uses the brain, you better have evidence for your claim.

By maintaining that it is self-evident that material objects like the brain are the sole form of reality you are ignoring the accumulated wisdom of humanity for thousands of years. Moreover we infer that tangible objects like the brain exist from our perceptions whereas we have immediate, direct knowledge of our mental activity. Our primary data are our intangible thoughts, emotions, feelings, decisions and perceptions.

You are attempting to dispose of the very foundation on which every jot of your reasoning is based! The burden of proof is on you to explain how the electrical impulses in your brain account for “your” ability to explain their own activity! Your hypothesis amounts to a rejection of yourself as a rational being in favour of molecular structures which are totally devoid of insight and knowledge of anything whatsoever…

Do the verified facts found in neuroscience textbooks account for consciousness, free will, moral responsibility, abstract reasoning, the capacity for love, the principles of science and the mind of the neuroscientist? Please answer: yes or no?

 

[Luke_K]

Do the verified facts found in neuroscience textbooks account for consciousness, free will, moral responsibility, abstract reasoning, the capacity for love, the principles of science and the mind of the neuroscientist?

How does an immaterial mind account for those things, other than saying “It just does.”?

How do you explain the fact that none of those things are possible when the sleep chemicals are in your brain? You are unconscious when you’re sleeping and not dreaming.

And one more thing: Isn’t it the case anyways that God’s mind does have parts? After all, God is three persons, not one.

 

[Peepers]

I have already stated that the human mind is an intangible entity which grasps intangible truths and makes intangible decisions. We have direct awareness of our mind through our thoughts, emotions, feelings, perceptions and decisions. It is the seat of consciousness and power of abstract reasoning which enables us to understand facts, formulate universal principles and transcend time and space through hindsight, insight and foresight. It controls the brain, interprets the stimuli it receives from the senses and often has intuitive as well as empirical knowledge.

When we refer to “myself” (or “himself” or “herself”) we do not mean “my body” but “my mind”. It is our mind not our brain that exercises self-control, resists impulses and is responsible for our choices and decisions. Our brain is the instrument with which our mind receives information from the physical world and communicates our thoughts and wishes to others. We don’t know how the mind originated any more than how matter originated but we do know **all our knowledge **is based on introspection and inferences from our perceptions. Our sole certainty is our stream of consciousness and not material objects. Without a mind we wouldn’t even know the world exists!

In the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is a paper by Sven Petersen of the Karolinska Institute. His experiment was with mice. When raised in a sterile environment with sterile food, the mice became “hyperactive”. If bacteria was introduced at a specific early stage of their growth, then they actually experienced a phenotype change. The phenotype has not been identified yet, but the chemical correlates are specific enough to indicate a change in brain structure. This was accompanied by a personality change in the mouse.

Gastroenterologists refer to the colon as the second brain, due to the density of neurons, and also the huge reservoir of serotonin. It is also known that there is a large release of bacteria from the developing colon in fetal development. The significance of that is unknown. We speak of having a gut feeling, etc… referring to a cognitive decision making process which seems hard to localize the source of.

Cases have been documented of organ transplant recipients perceiving memories of the organ donors whom they have never met, and of whom they have not been given any knowledge.

It seems that what we call the “mind” is not merely resident in our brains.

 

[tonyrey]

Do the verified facts found in neuroscience textbooks account for consciousness, free will, moral responsibility, abstract reasoning, the capacity for love, the principles of science and the mind of the neuroscientist?

We can give a very detailed and coherent explanation of how these powers are related and interdependent whereas it is impossible to account for them in terms of neural impulses in the brain. Psychology is concerned primarily with the intangible aspects of mental activity but we have to accept the existence of the mind - like matter - as a fundamental, inexplicable reality. It is reasonable to believe the mind is the dominant factor because of its superior role in human activity.

How do you explain the fact that none of those things are possible when the sleep chemicals are in your brain? You are unconscious when you’re sleeping and not dreaming.

It is impossible to know precisely what is happening when we are unconscious. If the brain is affected by chemical substances the mind obviously cannot control, communicate with or receive information from, the body. Yet its apparent inactivity does not entail non-existence. People who have been in a coma have reported being mentally active even though they appeared to be unaware of anything.

And one more thing: Isn’t it the case anyways that God’s mind does have parts? After all, God is three persons, not one.

It is the teaching of the Church that there are three Persons in One God. With our finite intelligence we cannot hope to understand how this is possible but it is certainly far more reasonable than trying to reduce everything to purposeless particles! Even on earth we know love leads to unity through the identification of oneself with the beloved. We also know that our mind is an intangible entity that cannot be divided into parts like a physical object. What would its parts be and how would you distinguish them?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…but rather you need to give evidence …

He keeps giving you reasons. If that isn’t evidence enough, what would be?

 

[Pieman333272]

And one more thing: Isn’t it the case anyways that God’s mind does have parts? After all, God is three persons, not one.

No, because they are not a part of God’s mind but rather contain it.

 

[Pieman333272]

How does an immaterial mind account for those things, other than saying “It just does.”?

Really, “it just does” is the only thing that works. If those things can’t be explained by the brain, it just has to be there and to do these tasks, working alongside the brain.

 

[Peepers]

We can give a very detailed and coherent explanation of how these powers are related and interdependent whereas it is impossible to account for them in terms of neural impulses in the brain. Psychology is concerned primarily with the intangible aspects of mental activity but we have to accept the existence of the mind - like matter - as a fundamental, inexplicable reality. It is reasonable to believe the mind is the dominant factor because of its superior role in human activity.

It is impossible to know precisely what is happening when we are unconscious. If the brain is affected by chemical substances the mind obviously cannot control, communicate with or receive information from, the body. Yet its apparent inactivity does not entail non-existence. People who have been in a coma have reported being mentally active even though they appeared to be unaware of anything.

It is the teaching of the Church that there are three Persons in One God. With our finite intelligence we cannot hope to understand how this is possible but it is certainly far more reasonable than trying to reduce everything to purposeless particles! Even on earth we know love leads to unity through the identification of oneself with the beloved. We also know that our mind is an intangible entity that cannot be divided into parts like a physical object. What would its parts be and how would you distinguish them?

Hold on a minute… the location of religious perception in the brain has been located. Electrical stimulation of this part of the brain would result in a devout Christian having the experience of sensing Jesus being in the same room, or something similar. The “frontal medial pleasure center” which comprises four dopamine rich parts of the brain have been studied in relation to various experiences of spiritual ecstasy, in addition to sexual pleasure, and addictive behavior. It is hard to predict, but it seems to be more likely than it is unlikely that specific abstract concepts like “consciousness”, “remorse”, “intuition”… , will be codified into specific interactions of specific parts of the brain.

However, the brain is plastic. For example, you can record a monkey’s neural activity to move her arm, and then build a robot arm which moves according to the monkey’s thoughts. Put the robot arm in another room with a camera, and let the monkey see the image of the arm moving as she moves her own arm. She learns to move the robotic arm with her arm, and then a remarkable thing happens: she learns to move the robotic arm with her thoughts, without moving her own arm. Then she learns to move both arms independently. You can then wire her up and see how her brain activity has changed.

 

[tonyrey]

We can give a very detailed and coherent explanation of how these powers are related and interdependent whereas it is impossible to account for them in terms of neural impulses in the brain. Psychology is concerned primarily with the intangible aspects of mental activity but we have to accept the existence of the mind - like matter - as a fundamental, inexplicable reality. It is reasonable to believe the mind is the dominant factor because of its superior role in human activity.

It is impossible to know precisely what is happening when we are unconscious. If the brain is affected by chemical substances the mind obviously cannot control, communicate with or receive information from, the body. Yet its apparent inactivity does not entail non-existence. People who have been in a coma have reported being mentally active even though they appeared to be unaware of anything.

It is the teaching of the Church that there are three Persons in One God. With our finite intelligence we cannot hope to understand how this is possible but it is certainly far more reasonable than trying to reduce everything to purposeless particles! Even on earth we know love leads to unity through the identification of oneself with the beloved. We also know that our mind is an intangible entity that cannot be divided into parts like a physical object. What would its parts be and how would you distinguish them?

Hold on a minute… the location of religious perception in the brain has been located. Electrical stimulation of this part of the brain would result in a devout Christian having the experience of sensing Jesus being in the same room, or something similar. The “frontal medial pleasure center” which comprises four dopamine rich parts of the brain have been studied in relation to various experiences of spiritual ecstasy, in addition to sexual pleasure, and addictive behavior. It is hard to predict, but it seems to be more likely than it is unlikely that specific abstract concepts like “consciousness”, “remorse”, “intuition”… , will be codified into specific interactions of specific parts of the brain.

Obviously brain activity is intimately related to mental activity. There is interaction but the mind is the dominant factor; otherwise we are merely biological machines with no power of choice. Self-control implies the existence of the self, not isolated events in the lump of tissue inside our skull which is unaware that it even exists! If you deny abstract concepts are real you are reducing reasoning to electrical impulses and truth to a word, a figment of the imagination - whatever that may be! In which part of the brain are images located?

However, the brain is plastic. For example, you can record a monkey’s neural activity to move her arm, and then build a robot arm which moves according to the monkey’s thoughts. Put the robot arm in another room with a camera, and let the monkey see the image of the arm moving as she moves her own arm. She learns to move the robotic arm with her arm, and then a remarkable thing happens: she learns to move the robotic arm with her thoughts, without moving her own arm. Then she learns to move both arms independently. You can then wire her up and see how her brain activity has changed.

The plasticity of the brain does not explain consciousness, purposeful activity, free will, moral responsibility, abstract reasoning, the capacity for love, the principles of science or** the unity and continuity of the mind**. Materialism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the value, beauty and richness of reality, particularly personal existence…

 

[Peepers]

Obviously brain activity is intimately related to mental activity. There is interaction but the mind is the dominant factor; otherwise we are merely biological machines with no power of choice. Self-control implies the existence of the self, not isolated events in the lump of tissue inside our skull which is unaware that it even exists! If you deny abstract concepts are real you are reducing reasoning to electrical impulses and truth to a word, a figment of the imagination - whatever that may be! In which part of the brain are images located?

The plasticity of the brain does not explain consciousness, purposeful activity, free will, moral responsibility, abstract reasoning, the capacity for love, the principles of science or** the unity and continuity of the mind**. Materialism is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the value, beauty and richness of reality, particularly personal existence…

My point is that the plasticity of the brain makes it harder to study these things. However, there are biological correlates more and more to the abstract areas of brain function. Only time will tell… The ability to see neurons firing in the brain using non-invasive techniques is still a young discipline.There are more questions than answers. For example, with the recent finding I mentioned by Dr. Petersen, one of the first things that comes to mind is that autistic kids have a lot of gastrointestinal problems. Every panel or group which I have heard discussing his findings have hit on this speculation within a few minutes. What role does our gut play in our personalities and our cognition? Only a few years ago, the answer would have been none. Today, the answer would be, we don’t know, but there are some intriguing data.