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

[tonyrey]

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.

I’m not sure what you mean by “these things”. Your reference to the abstract areas of brain function suggests that you believe neuroscience will eventually explain all mental activity, a view supported by your statement:

“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.”

 

[Peepers]

I’m not sure what you mean by “these things”. Your reference to the abstract areas of brain function suggests that you believe neuroscience will eventually explain all mental activity, a view supported by your statement:

“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.”

Nobody can predict the outcome, but there is a trend. I mean something as abstract as religious inspiration has been located in the brain. When someone is having what they call a religious experience, this part of the brain is excited. When you excite this part of the brain artificially, then a religious experience is induced, including visions sometimes, or more vague responses. An atheist might feel a sense of oneness with the world and awe, a Christian might have a sense of God’s presence in the room, and so on. That is just one example of an abstract thought process having a specific place in the brain which has been identified.

 

[tonyrey]

        *I'm not sure what you mean by "these things". Your reference to the abstract areas of brain function suggests that you believe neuroscience will eventually explain **all mental activity***

An artificial stimulus to the brain will obviously produce an effect but that does not mean **all **our experiences are caused by physical stimuli. If that were the case we would be incapable of controlling our thoughts, feelings or decisions. In other words we would be biological robots which are not responsible for their conclusions - and therefore unlikely to reach correct conclusions about the nature of reality. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth!

There is plenty of evidence that the power of suggestion can produce effects on the body - and therefore on the brain. But that doesn’t mean all physical effects are caused
by suggestion!

 

[Luke_K]

tonyrey, I’m sure you’ll like this article: quodlibet.net/articles/williams-mind.shtml

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey, I’m sure you’ll like this article: quodlibet.net/articles/williams-mind.shtml

Many thanks, Luke. I’ve skimmed through it and bookmarked it for further enjoyment.

 

[greylorn]

Truthseeker claims that we cannot say God is a mind with no parts (the standard objection to Dawkins’ “Improbability of the Designer” argument or whatever) because we have neither A) evidence of this being possible in the world or B) even the concept of a mind without parts because all minds we know of have parts.

I object that God doesn’t need an equivalent or evidence of a trait of his in this world in order for it to be possible. I am working on a more comprehensive objection but I want to think it through first.

To all, feel free to reply to either of our points. Truthseeker, I hope to see your reply soon.

Descartes has already solved this problem. He correctly defined soul as mind. However he did not properly account for its interaction with brain. That simple problem has since been solved, elsewhere. So…

All you need to do is treat the soul as a mind which happens to be temporarily connected to a brain, and which will go solo after the body’s demise. This gives you six billion examples of single-part minds to defeat Dawkins’ silly arguments with.

But why bother arguing with a Darwinist on the basis of anything to do with probability or improbability? The probability for the evolution of a single human gene by random chance is approximately 10[sup]-532[/sup]. There are about 23000 genes in the entire human genome. Probabilities multiply. Dawkins is a dogmatic nit who should not be taken seriously.

 

[tonyrey]

Descartes has already solved this problem. He correctly defined soul as mind. However he did not properly account for its interaction with brain. That simple problem has since been solved, elsewhere. So…

All you need to do is treat the soul as a mind which happens to be temporarily connected to a brain, and which will go solo after the body’s demise. This gives you six billion examples of single-part minds to defeat Dawkins’ silly arguments with.

But why bother arguing with a Darwinist on the basis of anything to do with probability or improbability? The probability for the evolution of a single human gene by random chance is approximately 10[sup]-532[/sup]. There are about 23000 genes in the entire human genome. Probabilities multiply. Dawkins is a dogmatic nit who should not be taken seriously.

I don’t think every gene need be attributed individually to random chance but I agree with your conclusion.

 

[Pieman333272]

Descartes has already solved this problem. He correctly defined soul as mind. However he did not properly account for its interaction with brain. That simple problem has since been solved, elsewhere. So…

All you need to do is treat the soul as a mind which happens to be temporarily connected to a brain, and which will go solo after the body’s demise. This gives you six billion examples of single-part minds to defeat Dawkins’ silly arguments with.

But why bother arguing with a Darwinist on the basis of anything to do with probability or improbability? The probability for the evolution of a single human gene by random chance is approximately 10[sup]-532[/sup]. There are about 23000 genes in the entire human genome. Probabilities multiply. Dawkins is a dogmatic nit who should not be taken seriously.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

That last sentence hit it home, but the whole argument was great. Good work as always, Greylorn.

 

[valentino]

Nobody can predict the outcome, but there is a trend. I mean something as abstract as religious inspiration has been located in the brain. When someone is having what they call a religious experience, this part of the brain is excited. When you excite this part of the brain artificially, then a religious experience is induced, including visions sometimes, or more vague responses. An atheist might feel a sense of oneness with the world and awe, a Christian might have a sense of God’s presence in the room, and so on. That is just one example of an abstract thought process having a specific place in the brain which has been identified.

According to you you are saying that every imaginable thought,sensation may be discovered in some part of the brain and with stimuli you can produce this.that seems absurd.in a stretch of the imagination you may be able to say that someday we can make a brain.

 

[greylorn]

I don’t think every gene need be attributed individually to random chance but I agree with your conclusion.

Tony,
I do not attribute the existence of any gene to random chance, with the exception of certain genes which may be engineered so as to be randomly tweakable.

However, Darwinists attribute the existence of all genes to random chance, having mistakenly rejected even natural external gene modification mechanisms such as Lamarckian evolution.

Therefore my argument was proposed as a way to corner them in their own ring. Let’s take the offensive against those clowns, for a change!

 

[greylorn]

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

That last sentence hit it home, but the whole argument was great. Good work as always, Greylorn.

Pieman,
You’ve no idea how much I needed that. Thank you!

 

[tonyrey]

Tony,
I do not attribute the existence of any gene to random chance, with the exception of certain genes which may be engineered so as to be randomly tweakable.

However, Darwinists attribute the existence of all genes to random chance, having mistakenly rejected even natural external gene modification mechanisms such as Lamarckian evolution.

Therefore my argument was proposed as a way to corner them in their own ring. Let’s take the offensive against those clowns, for a change!

**Into battle boys! “By the power of Greylorn … I have the powerrr!!!” **