Is there any mind?

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio:

What else do you think is needed to accept causality?

I meant that we realize causality through the correlation in motion of things. The correlation is the key thing here. Why we cannot apply the same principle to correlation between brain activity and consciousness saying that the brain activity create consciousness?

Immanuel Kant used to take a walk everyday at the same hour of the day. And when people wanted to know what time it was, instead of looking at a clock, they looked at Kant’s position. They established a correlation between Kant’s position and the position of the clock; but nobody pretended that Kant’s movement was the cause of the movement of the clocks in town.

If there was only one kind of correlation (cause/ effect), I would say “STT is right”, but as it is not the case I say “STT is just pretending”.

 

[STT]

As Franz Brentano said, “To be conscious is always to be conscious of something”. That “something” is the object of consciousness. So, if you explain a given object of sensation, in a certain manner you have explained the conscious state; but just “in a certain manner”.

I see and thanks.

We might be able to measure some phenomena taking place in our brain, but we would not be measuring pain.

Let me know if you are agree with the following phrase: We are able to measure some activity in a brain related to a phenomena like pain but we cannot measure pain.

 

[STT]

Immanuel Kant used to take a walk everyday at the same hour of the day. And when people wanted to know what time it was, instead of looking at a clock, they looked at Kant’s position. They established a correlation between Kant’s position and the position of the clock; but nobody pretended that Kant’s movement was the cause of the movement of the clocks in town.

If there was only one kind of correlation (cause/ effect), I would say “STT is right”, but as it is not the case I say “STT is just pretending”.

Ok. Let me ask you another question. What is the brain activity for if it is not for consciousness?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Let me know if you are agree with the following phrase: We are able to measure some activity in a brain related to a phenomena like pain but we cannot measure pain.

Yes, in principle and provided a suitable reference is invented, processes that take place in a brain can be detected and measured. That is possible because, in principle, those processes can affect a physical device, which would be our measuring device. If you observe that some of those processes are associated with pain, you could measure them (presence of something, concentration of something, intensity of something…) and ask the patient how he feels in a given scale of pain. You could then establish a correlation between the measured process and the reported degree of pain. I have no idea how difficult it could be, because I guess there are many physical variables involved, but at least in principle, I think it could be.

However, pain itself -because it is not a property nor an interaction mode of the brain- is not measurable.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

JuanFlorencio:

Immanuel Kant used to take a walk everyday at the same hour of the day. And when people wanted to know what time it was, instead of looking at a clock, they looked at Kant’s position. They established a correlation between Kant’s position and the position of the clock; but nobody pretended that Kant’s movement was the cause of the movement of the clocks in town.

If there was only one kind of correlation (cause/ effect), I would say “STT is right”, but as it is not the case I say “STT is just pretending”.

Ok. Let me ask you another question. What is the brain activity for if it is not for consciousness?

Based on your question I guess you believe that in my opinion our brain (perhaps, in general, our body; and perhaps even the world), plays no role at all. It is a strange question, and I have no clue what you are finally looking for.

What is the purpose of brain activity?
What is the purpose of the movement of earth around the sun?
What is the purpose of cats making those annoying sounds when they are sleeping?

The fact is that when I do the analysis of my experience, I am forced to distinguish between my mind and what goes on in the physical world. If you are unable to distinguish between certain physical chemical processes in your brain and the thoughts about a beautiful sunset, no discourse at all will enable you to do it.

 

[STT]

Based on your question I guess you believe that in my opinion our brain (perhaps, in general, our body; and perhaps even the world), plays no role at all. It is a strange question, and I have no clue what you are finally looking for.

What is the purpose of brain activity?

What is the purpose of the movement of earth around the sun?

What is the purpose of cats making those annoying sounds when they are sleeping?

The fact is that when I do the analysis of my experience, I am forced to distinguish between my mind and what goes on in the physical world. If you are unable to distinguish between certain physical chemical processes in your brain and the thoughts about a beautiful sunset, no discourse at all will enable you to do it.

Well, you didn’t answer my question. You have mind and brain. What each one does?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Well, you didn’t answer my question. You have mind and brain. What each one does?

Your starting point is not good at all, STT. I insist that we need to start with the analysis of our experience. That way, perhaps you would be able to understand the meaning of certain philosophical terms. When you say “you have mind and brain”, it seems as if you thought that I am a thing that possesses at least two other things: mind and brain; which is a rather crude way of thinking.

The analysis of my experience shows me that I belong to the realm of interactions, and that I also belong to the realm of relations. It also shows me that relations and interactions are irreducible to each other.

It is because I am corporeal (including the fact that a brain is an aspect of my corporeality) that I participate in interactions. And the fact that I am a being able to establish relations is what I mean when I say that I am a mind, or that understanding is one of my faculties, or that I am spiritual. Once here, I can respond to your crude question in the same fashion: my brain interacts; my mind establishes relations.

 

[STT]

Your starting point is not good at all, STT. I insist that we need to start with the analysis of our experience. That way, perhaps you would be able to understand the meaning of certain philosophical terms. When you say “you have mind and brain”, it seems as if you thought that I am a thing that possesses at least two other things: mind and brain; which is a rather crude way of thinking.

The analysis of my experience shows me that I belong to the realm of interactions, and that I also belong to the realm of relations. It also shows me that relations and interactions are irreducible to each other.

It is because I am corporeal (including the fact that a brain is an aspect of my corporeality) that I participate in interactions. And the fact that I am a being able to establish relations is what I mean when I say that I am a mind, or that understanding is one of my faculties, or that I am spiritual. Once here, I can respond to your crude question in the same fashion: my brain interacts; my mind establishes relations.

I understand what you are saying. Let’s discuss it this way that I show what I am thinking. We are sure that we have brain. We are sure that we can decide. The ability to decide cannot arises from the brain since brain is material. Mind therefore should exist as a entity which allows us to decide. Mind however cannot emerge from matter since we fall in trap of overdetermination. Therefore mind should exist as a separate entity which allows us to decide.

Now we at least know that that is mind which decides. The question is what is the duty of brain. Thinking only perhaps. What do you think? Or you just think that brain just allows you to interact with material world?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

I understand what you are saying. Let’s discuss it this way that I show what I am thinking. We are sure that we have brain. We are sure that we can decide. The ability to decide cannot arises from the brain since brain is material. Mind therefore should exist as a entity which allows us to decide. Mind however cannot emerge from matter since we fall in trap of overdetermination. Therefore mind should exist as a separate entity which allows us to decide.

Now we at least know that that is mind which decides. The question is what is the duty of brain. Thinking only perhaps. What do you think? Or you just think that brain just allows you to interact with material world?

In my opinion, our brain is a malleable machine. So, it plays its role in the realm of interactions which is dominated by facts. In the realm of relations, on the other hand, possibilities appear. And possibilities are the foundation for the ability to decide. So, I tend to agree with you when you suggest that our brain is not the fountain of decision; though it is necessary to acknowledge that our body plays an important role in the complex activity of decision making.