Inviting MoM

[warpspeedpetey]

Irrelevant and off topic. Violation of the PSD.

dont dodge. its dead on topic because it adresses the mind/body dichotomy. and PSR is the principle of sufficient reason, dont be flip.

The universe is not deterministic. See the quantum events.

im familiar with QM, you may be confusing various aspects of uncertainty with indeterminism, being uncertain of an outcome doesnt equate to indeterminancy any more than being uncertain of the outcome of a dice roll means that it is indeterminant, bells theorum says there cant be local hidden variables. not that there can be no hidden variables, in fact locality is somewhat disspelled with quantum entanglement or “spooky action at a distance” there are a variety of ideas in the field, but all QM lies on the causal chain from lagrangian values which are contingent on a pre-existing vacuum. no vacuum, no QM. causal determinism proven. the method may be left to the physicists to sort out the steps between one and the other, but it is clear that the causal determinism is the state of the universe. and if not, then where is the evidence of indeterminancy on any scale larger than a helium atom?

Free will is just a plausible assumption, which cannot proven or disproven.

what better way to test a theory than by trillions of experiments per day for thousands of years? if it is illusory, then the question becomes who designed a system to perfectly fake free will? and why? if the universe is indeterminant and that is what causes free will then why is free will the only effect of that indeterminancy? shouldnt we then see other effects? kind of a catch 22 here. either way we wind up with free will and unexplainable phenomenon. looks well proven to me by any standard.

At last something of an argument. Hydrogen and oxygen are not wet. Their composition - water - is wet. Something that is not wet cannot produce “wetness”. Therefore we see an immaterial entity at work, which lends “wetness” to an otherwise dry substance. Is that your argument? Have you ever heard of emerging attributes? Do you know what that means? When one is messing with the interface (like severing the power cord to a TV set), the result is very simple: the reception will stop. No “messing” with the power cable will ever change the channels or change the volume, will it?

i dont think that the mind emerges from the brain, if so then we shouldnt have free will in this determinant universe. as the previous argument you dismissed shows. the mind is hardly an emergent property then, of the brain. the brain then may simply be the interface between the mind and the body. messing with it alters sensory and motor controls, but doesnt interfere with that part called the mind, which seems to enable free will. to use your analogy the brain is like the remote control, one can change the channels and volume by messing with it, but that doesnt affect the mind or in this analogy the couch potatoe using it

Anyhow, you did not present any evidence to show that the mind is somehow controlling the brain.

yes i did you just said it was irrelevant.

You did not explain how that assumed interface is supposed to work.

wqho knows, i can only show free will must be transcendental to the physical universe, the method then of interaction is another of the non-physical mysteries.

How do you explain the millions of data which show the exact opposite?

i dont think they show the opposite, they just assume that the mind is emergent from the brain, yet the transcendental effects likie free will can only have transcendental causes, the physical brain has no trancsendental properties with which to give existences to transcendental free will.

ergo, the mind is not emergent from the brain. its just an assumption.

 

[James_S_Saint]

One of my greater disappointments in the field of Psy came when one day in a graduate pys class, the professor came into the room and announced to the class, “the mind does not exist”. He then proceeded to lecture.

I raised my hand and asked, “wouldn’t that depend on what we are calling the mind? What are you calling the ‘mind’?”

He looked at me for a moment then smiled, “how can I tell you what it is if it doesn’t EXIST!?” and laughed.

The class roared with laughter with him. And I chose to hold my objection until after class.

After class, I followed him to the doctorates chambers and tried to reason with him about how he could possibly tell me that something didn’t exist if he didn’t first know what it was.

In the presents of 7 other PhDs participating, it still took me 45 minutes to get them to see that proclaiming anything about anything before defining what that thing was, is irrational.

That incident was the straw breaking any thought I had to go into professional psychology as a courier.

If you can’t define it, you can’t rationally talk about it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

you may be confusing various aspects of uncertainty with indeterminism, being uncertain of an outcome doesnt equate to indeterminancy any more than being uncertain of the outcome of a dice roll means that it is indeterminant, bells theorum says there cant be local hidden variables. not that there can be no hidden variables, in fact locality is somewhat disspelled with quantum entanglement

EXACTLY!!

The entanglement experiment was designed to defeat uncertainty and it succeeded.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The concept that “correlation is not causation” is at best a bit sloppy. It should say: “correlation is not necessarily causation”.

Let us just say that correlation and causation are sometimes correlated.

When we observe two phenomena (A and B) occurring in an apparently correlated fashion, there can be four possibilities: A causes B, B causes A, A and B are both caused by a third cause C, or we say that they just happened to show up together, we merely see a coincidence.

I’ll agree to this.

Which one is true dependens on the circumstances. When we cause damage to the brain, we see a change in the working of the mind. When we introduce a chemical substance into the brain we also see a change in the working of the mind. When the fronal lobe is severed, we see a disappearance of the personality. If the two halves of the brain are separated, we see the emergence of two competing personalities.

Well, there are two ways to look at this. When I see *someone else *thinking along with their brain waves, I see the impact of different stimuli. You give them caffeine, and they wake up. Here we have evidence for causation. The physical world effects the physical world – a physical substance affecting a physical body.

But when it comes to myself,** I do not experience myself as a simple collection of responses**. There *seems to be *a ghost in the machine. When told I am simply a physical being, I clearly seem to have evidence that this is not the case. Perhaps my evidence is wrong. But you seem to be saying I should entirely disregard it?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

By what “logic” is it possible?

Conventional ideas of logic, that anything that does not create a contradiction is possible. Your ideas of one single chain of logic are interesting, but I haven’t yet adopted them.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If it can be reconciled with existing evidence, perhaps, but what if all aspects of consciousness are demonstrated to be a manifestation of brain activity?

This is utterly impossible, because the *phenomena of consciousness itself *is not entailed by the nature of physical matter. It can hardly be proven that animals have consciousness, no more than you can prove to me that **you **have consciousness. I’ll believe you if you say it, though.

 

[Shredderbeam]

This is utterly impossible, because the *phenomena of consciousness itself *is not entailed by the nature of physical matter. It can hardly be proven that animals have consciousness, no more than you can prove to me that **you **have consciousness. I’ll believe you if you say it, though.

When I say “all aspects of consciousness are demonstrated to be a manifestation of brain activity”, I mean in the normal, everyday sense in which things are demonstrated. For example, it is not possible to prove with 100% certainty that a brick will fall if you let go of it, but it is generally agreed that it will.

It is possible for human volunteers to undergo experimentation, and report back how their consciousness was affected by the tests.

 

[Spock]

But when it comes to myself,** I do not experience myself as a simple collection of responses**. There *seems to be *a ghost in the machine. When told I am simply a physical being, I clearly seem to have evidence that this is not the case. Perhaps my evidence is wrong. But you seem to be saying I should entirely disregard it?

The truth is that we do not experience ourselves completely - not by a long shot. The large majority of the brain activity happens the the sub-sonscious part - which is inaccessible to us in a direct fashion. However, it is possible to measure some parts of it. Here is a very interesting example:

There were experiments where the thinking process of chess players were observed, via a simple setup. An infra-red beam was directed to player’s eyes, and the movements of the eyes were mapped to the pieces on the board. The player’s eyes selected a piece, and he “projected” the possible counter-moves, his possible counter-counter moves, etc… The eye movements sometimes focused on a small part of the board, as the player contemplated the ramification of one possible move. Then the eye movements expanded and started to cover other parts of the board as another possible move was contemplated.

Now comes the interesting part. All of a sudden there was an incredibly rapid movement of the eyes, and then the “heureka-moment” happened, as the player found the best move. The ultra-rapid eye movement was the indication that the player already found the best move in his sub-conscious, and his sub-conscious was doing the actual analysis. This analysis happened just before the player realized what the best move would be - before the solution emerged from the sub-conscious into the conscious part.

Obviously, the activity of the brain cannot be restricted to the conscious part. The sub-conscious is much more important, and that is why most of the brain’s activity is still unmapped. But the whole neuro-science has barely started. With new measuring techniques we can be quite certain that the hitherto “mysterious” parts of the brain will yield more information and better understanding. This optimism is based upon the results obtained so far. The best working hypothesis is that we shall be able to discern the activity of the brain, precisely **because **we consider it a physical process.

The alternative hypothesis - the mind is some independently existing phenomenon, which uses some unknowable channel to direct the barin activity - does not lead anywhere (even if it were true), since there is no way to measure or verify it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The truth is that we do not experience ourselves completely - not by a long shot. The large majority of the brain activity happens the the sub-sonscious part - which is inaccessible to us in a direct fashion. However, it is possible to measure some parts of it. Here is a very interesting example:

There were experiments where the thinking process of chess players were observed, via a simple setup. An infra-red beam was directed to player’s eyes, and the movements of the eyes were mapped to the pieces on the board. The player’s eyes selected a piece, and he “projected” the possible counter-moves, his possible counter-counter moves, etc… The eye movements sometimes focused on a small part of the board, as the player contemplated the ramification of one possible move. Then the eye movements expanded and started to cover other parts of the board as another possible move was contemplated.

Now comes the interesting part. All of a sudden there was an incredibly rapid movement of the eyes, and then the “heureka-moment” happened, as the player found the best move. The ultra-rapid eye movement was the indication that the player already found the best move in his sub-conscious, and his sub-conscious was doing the actual analysis. This analysis happened just before the player realized what the best move would be - before the solution emerged from the sub-conscious into the conscious part.

That is an extremely interesting story, and I agree that the conscious mind is only the tip of the iceberg. Clearly, our memories and thinking processes rely upon the brain. But you seem to be saying more than that.

Obviously, the activity of the brain cannot be restricted to the conscious part. The sub-conscious is much more important, and that is why most of the brain’s activity is still unmapped. But the whole neuro-science has barely started. With new measuring techniques we can be quite certain that the hitherto “mysterious” parts of the brain will yield more information and better understanding. This optimism is based upon the results obtained so far. The best working hypothesis is that we shall be able to discern the activity of the brain, precisely **because **we consider it a physical process.

The activity of the brain is a physical process. In our brains, every aspect of our personhood is made manifest.

The alternative hypothesis - the mind is some independently existing phenomenon, which uses some unknowable channel to direct the barin activity - does not lead anywhere (even if it were true), since there is no way to measure or verify it.

I don’t believe that the mind is an independently existing phenomenon. I will agree that the mind is the manifestation of the brain. But I agree with other posters that your nomenclature is a bit convenient, and I have taken the liberty of assuming that you are arguing that the experience of consciousness is a result of brain activity. But we do not experience the consciousness of others in the world. For all we know, animal behaviors can and do exist independently of consciousness – except in our own case. I know that I am conscious, and I cannot connect any truth in science to my knowledge of that fact.

You can explain why I play the knight and take a pawn. But can you explain why I experience myself do so?

 

[Spock]

That is an extremely interesting story, and I agree that the conscious mind is only the tip of the iceberg. Clearly, our memories and thinking processes rely upon the brain. But you seem to be saying more than that.

I am glad you liked the story. I found it fascinating when I first heard it. Do you mean our consciousness? If that is what you mean, yes I certainly do.

The activity of the brain is a physical process. In our brains, every aspect of our personhood is made manifest.

I agree.

I don’t believe that the mind is an independently existing phenomenon. I will agree that the mind is the manifestation of the brain. But I agree with other posters that your nomenclature is a bit convenient, and I have taken the liberty of assuming that you are arguing that the experience of consciousness is a result of brain activity.

I certainly do. It is amazing that we can recognize the face of a relative even on a very hazy photograph. We cannot actually explain how this recognition process takes place, which are the features that identify the unfocused picture as the picture of our parent. We cannot even explain how do we recognize a clear picture. The process in the brain which does this identification must be very complex. However, the brain is a very complex parallel-processing computer. Out current parallel processing computers have a few hundred CPU-s, while the brain has billions of them. No wonder that our progress is slow.

But we do not experience the consciousness of others in the world. For all we know, animal behaviors can and do exist independently of consciousness – except in our own case. I know that I am conscious, and I cannot connect any truth in science to my knowledge of that fact.

Now, let’s make sure that we mean the same thing when we use the word: “consciousness”. For me it means the awareness of the external and internal world. Self-consciousness would be a higher level, the recognition of “I” as comapred to “not-I”.

What you say: “we cannot experience someone else’s consciousness” is absolutely correct. We cannot. However, consciousness is hardly unique in this respect. We cannot directly experience someone else’s pain either. We make the assumption that if someone looks like to be in pain, then he is really in pain. (Of course a good actor can simulate pain quite convincingly.) Nevertheless we accept that the outward signs of pain (or happiness, or love, etc…) are good indicators that the person in question experiences these internal feelings. We cannot experience someone else’s blood pressure either. Using a device we can measure it. Such measurement in the brain would be extremely difficult, but not impossible.

Animals certainly exhibit such states of mind. Birds recognize their offspring as opposed to other offsprings in their flock. They protect their own and do not care about the other chicks in danger. That is a sign of consciousness on a rudimentary level. Animals recognize they prey or their predators. Clearly it is the sign of some rudimentary self-consciousness - differntiating between the “I” and the “not-I”. Some primates were able to learn sign language (their vocal box is unfit to utter intelligible words) and a conversation can be conducted with them, albeit on a very primitive level. That is also the sign of some form of consciousness.

You can explain why I play the knight and take a pawn. But can you explain why I experience myself do so?

I am not sure I know what you mean here.

 

[shoewindow3000]

My “appeal to authority” ( )

Atheist to God

Joyce Hawkes, PhD (cell biologist), had an accident that forever changed her life — and her view of science. She suffered a concussion from a falling window. “I think that part of me — that my spirit, my soul — left my body and went to another reality,” she said. She was surprised at the experience.

“It just was not part of the paradigm in which I lived as a scientist,” Hawkes recalled. “it was a big surprise to me to have this sense of something different than the body — a consciousness different than the body — and to be in this wonderfully healing, peaceful, nurturing place.”

“I think what I learned was that there truly is no death, that there is a change in state from a physical form to a spirit form, and that there’s nothing to fear about that passage,” she said.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Now, let’s make sure that we mean the same thing when we use the word: “consciousness”. For me it means the awareness of the external and internal world. Self-consciousness would be a higher level, the recognition of “I” as comapred to “not-I”.

I would define consciousness as pure subjectivity. The experience itself. “Awareness” is not a subject-oriented term, so I don’t think it will suffice. Some philosopher (Wittgenstein?) said that there is no way of expressing the subjective “experience”, because every word represents object, not subject. Consciousness lurks behind language, but can never be described by it.

How’s that for clear?

Self-consciousness is a higher level yet, and I would basically agree with your assessment of it.

What you say: “we cannot experience someone else’s consciousness” is absolutely correct. We cannot. However, consciousness is hardly unique in this respect. We cannot directly experience someone else’s pain either.

Pain is a state of consciousness - it is pure subjectivity. Subjectivity *is *unique in every respect. No one can tell us anything about it. We are immediately the authority in everything that pertains to it. If subjectivity can be studied objectively, I’d like to know how.

(Of course a good actor can simulate pain quite convincingly.) Nevertheless we accept that the outward signs of pain (or happiness, or love, etc…) are good indicators that the person in question experiences these internal feelings. We cannot experience someone else’s blood pressure either. Using a device we can measure it. Such measurement in the brain would be extremely difficult, but not impossible.

None of these indicators prove that these people are conscious. I do believe that they are conscious, but only because I am, and they seem to be like me. If they did not experience consciousness as I do, I have no rational reason to assume that they would not act as they do. I just don’t know.

Animals certainly exhibit such states of mind. Birds recognize their offspring as opposed to other offsprings in their flock. They protect their own and do not care about the other chicks in danger. That is a sign of consciousness on a rudimentary level.

No, it isn’t. It is a sign that they are a tremendously complicated mechanism. If you consider Skinner-type behaviorism, you will see that creatures can (rightly or wrongly) be reduced to their external responses. This does not prove that they are not conscious; neither does it prove that they are conscious.

I think that a one-to-one connection of the mind to the brain is possible, and I agree that there is some evidence for it. I just don’t think that it can ever be proven.

 

[Spock]

I would define consciousness as pure subjectivity. The experience itself. “Awareness” is not a subject-oriented term, so I don’t think it will suffice. Some philosopher (Wittgenstein?) said that there is no way of expressing the subjective “experience”, because every word represents object, not subject. Consciousness lurks behind language, but can never be described by it.

How’s that for clear?

I am afraid it is still not clear.

Self-consciousness is a higher level yet, and I would basically agree with your assessment of it.

That is good. Now, if self-consciousness equals self-awareness, then why would we shy away from saying that consciousness equals awareness?

Pain is a state of consciousness - it is pure subjectivity. Subjectivity *is *unique in every respect. No one can tell us anything about it. We are immediately the authority in everything that pertains to it. If subjectivity can be studied objectively, I’d like to know how.

The feeling of pain (or pleasure) is intricately connected to a certain part of the brain, and its activity. Pain and pleasure can be both induced by stimulating these parts of the brain with electic current. Conversely, we could use the same electrodes to measure the activity there, and would be able to measure the level of pain or pleasure.

No, it isn’t. It is a sign that they are a tremendously complicated mechanism. If you consider Skinner-type behaviorism, you will see that creatures can (rightly or wrongly) be reduced to their external responses. This does not prove that they are not conscious; neither does it prove that they are conscious.

I think that a one-to-one connection of the mind to the brain is possible, and I agree that there is some evidence for it. I just don’t think that it can ever be proven.

It all depends on the proof you require. Suppose there would be a gadget, which would measure the brain activity in the pain center of someone, and would induce the same activity in your brain. You would experience the same pain as he does. Would that be sufficient proof for you?

 

[Just_Lurking]

It can hardly be proven that animals have consciousness, no more than you can prove to me that **you **have consciousness. I’ll believe you if you say it, though.

I think that dreaming is an indication of consciousness, so I conclude that my cat has consciousness because I see her reacting in her sleep as though she were dreaming.

Science fiction seems to apply the same principle to robots - they will have consciousness when they start dreaming (“Do androids dream of electric sheep?”). I guess we could program a robot for 100% truthfulness and ask it if it had consciousness.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The proposed hypothesis by the materialist: “The mind is the activity of the brain.”

I can see two conflicting hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: The mind is the result of natural processes from physical law.

Hypothesis 2: Each and every occurrence of mind in the universe is the result of direct intervention by God, above and beyond the natural physical law of the universe.

How would you say this question relates to your question? Is hypothesis 1 equivalent to your hypothesis, or are you saying something stronger?

My take is that I don’t see that my religion informs on this question. Since God is the author of physical law, hypothesis 1 does not conflict with my belief in God.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If it is going to be a hypothesis;

A) Define “mind” in a non-tautological fashion
B) Distinguish, “Your mind is the functioning of your brain.”

The proposition that no mind can exist without a brain is another matter.
Online Merriam Webster:

* Main Entry: 1mind
* Pronunciation: \ˈmīnd\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English, from Old English gemynd; akin to Old High German gimunt memory, Latin ment-, mens mind, monēre to remind, warn, Greek menos spirit, mnasthai, mimnēskesthai to remember
* Date: before 12th century

1 : recollection, memory
2 a : the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons b : the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism c : the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism

 

[david_friol_1]

Let’s talk about the brain - mind dichotomy.

The proposed hypothesis by the materialist: “The mind is the activity of the brain.”
Suppoting argument: “There are millions of experiments which support this hypothesis. The neurological observations all show that you mess with the physical brain, you mess with the mind. You introduce chemicals into the brain you alter the mind. You stimulate certain parts of the brain with mild electric current, you invoke emotions, you invoke pleasure or pain, happiness or distress.”

These millions of experiments support the hypothesis.

Present your alternative hypothesis, and its supporting arguments. (Naturally, all are invited to the conversation, not just MoM.)

Hey Spock
Thanks for the short one. It all sounds good to me! No objections!
Peace to you Spock and a God bless you too!

 

[grannymh]

Let’s talk about the brain - mind dichotomy.

The proposed hypothesis by the materialist: “The mind is the activity of the brain.”
Suppoting argument: “There are millions of experiments which support this hypothesis. The neurological observations all show that you mess with the physical brain, you mess with the mind. You introduce chemicals into the brain you alter the mind. You stimulate certain parts of the brain with mild electric current, you invoke emotions, you invoke pleasure or pain, happiness or distress.”

These millions of experiments support the hypothesis.

Present your alternative hypothesis, and its supporting arguments. (Naturally, all are invited to the conversation, not just MoM.)

A human messing with the brain produces results which are quite different than the real activity of the mind.

Direct electrical stimulation delivered with a bipolar electrode using standard increasing intensities and durations is very helpful during open brain surgery. But I really doubt humans will catch on to the concept of wearing a bipolar electrode 24/7 in order to move their extremities.

Sorry, at the moment I don’t have any alternative hypotheses, except a comment – If one really wants to understand the brain’s “scientific” issues, skip the media hype and the hot news websites.
Those millions of experiments

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.