G
GEddie
Guest
The Body is definitely a unit, however, most of our thoughts, not involving limb movement, never go down the neck.
- Status
M
Moontown_Rabbit
Guest
They actually do go down the neck. The thoughts of a neuromuscular surgeon travel the entire length of the spinal cord, explore all of the vertebrae, and consider the purpose of each nerve bundle. Thoughts also leave the body entirely, as when a historian ponders the Peloponnesian War or the French Revolution. They can go into space and contemplate Jupiter or a super nova occuring 500 light years away. They can even go into entirely non-geographic realms, such as when a physics student encounters the hyper dimensional theories of general relativity, or when a fellow realizes he loves a girl so much that he decides to propose marriage. My point is that our thoughts are not in our head. It is our head that is a part of our thoughts. Do not allow anyone to put you into such a tiny prison.
G
GEddie
Guest
Well, no, your thoughts are in your head; if someone put a chokehold on your neck, your head would stop working and your thoughts would end, at least temporarily.
What happens when someone thinks of the planet Jupiter, etc, they are responding to an image that is in their eyes or in their mind. LIkewise when someone has thoughts of romantic love, if the lady is not physically with him, the image is in his mind.
I am not arguing against an Eternal Life btw. In eternity, we do get our mind back. But that is because we get our embodiedness back: in effect, a new “head.” “It is not the spiritual that comes first, but the natural, then the spiritual” (1Co 15).
“Of course it is happening in your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” — J K Rowling
ICXC NIKA
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
I think that you are misunderstanding the logical fallacy, which is that correlation does not necessarily prove causation. In some cases, it is entirely reasonable to believe that two correlating events have a causative relationship. For example, if a rat is injected with a high amount of poison, and it dies, it can sensibly be thought that the poison caused the rat to die. In this case, one’s mind seems to be fully dependent on the brain. There might be a third factor that causes the mind to become partially or wholly damaged, certainly, but there is no evidence to support the existence of this third factor. Thus, a causative relationship is the most likely.
We know when a choice is made by having the subject of a brain scan tell us exactly when he consciously thinks of something.
I would say that the choice/decision is located in the brain.
We’re still agents that are capable of thinking about our surroundings, making decisions, planning ahead, and so on. We can still be held responsible for our actions.
It suggests that consciousness is an illusion, probably.What does that prove?
You’re comparing the mind-brain scenario to the guitarist-guitar one, but that is not a fair comparison. If you damage a guitar, the guitarist is not harmed, but his ability to communicate (via music) is gone. If, however, you damage a brain, the mind is harmed. Sustaining brain damage actually affects one’s ability to think - not just to communicate, but their actual ability to think, reason, have moral feelings, and so on.
I am talking about scenarios where a person’s ability to communicate is not destroyed, but their ability to reason is. They’re not vegetables, they’re people you can sit down and have a conversation with. Some would tell you that they have perfect vision, but that they cannot distinguish a circle from a square. Some would tell you about the type of person they used to be before their personality was changed by brain damage. And so on.
Is there any evidence of emotions being felt without one’s brain-state changing, or levels of chemicals changing?
B
Birdchest
Guest
Just to pipe in my own 2 cents’ worth… and to reiterate…
Materialism of any sort is inconsistent with the Catholic faith which asserts that Man has an eternal soul and that there is a supernatural reality which is not the same as the world which we touch and see and smell. It would be inconsistent for a Catholic to believe in the mere materiality of the mind. However, since Christianity would also say that the material world is real (we’re not gnostics), then there would definitely be interaction between the brain and the mind. Wondering if there’s anyone out there who could pull some Aristotelian philosophy to throw light on the discussion. I’ve been reading up a little on the distinction between form and matter and feel this could throw light on the “matter” (no pun intended).
The following might or might not be helpful… not sure, please advise:
The other day I heard that there are birds capable of distinguishing colours that the human can’t see. This would be a case of the eye not being able to capture the entirety of visual reality. The human faculties cannot perceive the whole of what is. The beatific vision in the same way would be analogous to that-not perceivable by human vision. In the same way the brain would actually limit the human will and reason, as in the cases cited by one of the writers above. Sorry I’m not fleshing this out more but hopefully you can see where I’m going with it… feel free to comment, or not as the case may be!
birdchest
Materialism of any sort is inconsistent with the Catholic faith which asserts that Man has an eternal soul and that there is a supernatural reality which is not the same as the world which we touch and see and smell. It would be inconsistent for a Catholic to believe in the mere materiality of the mind. However, since Christianity would also say that the material world is real (we’re not gnostics), then there would definitely be interaction between the brain and the mind. Wondering if there’s anyone out there who could pull some Aristotelian philosophy to throw light on the discussion. I’ve been reading up a little on the distinction between form and matter and feel this could throw light on the “matter” (no pun intended).
The following might or might not be helpful… not sure, please advise:
The other day I heard that there are birds capable of distinguishing colours that the human can’t see. This would be a case of the eye not being able to capture the entirety of visual reality. The human faculties cannot perceive the whole of what is. The beatific vision in the same way would be analogous to that-not perceivable by human vision. In the same way the brain would actually limit the human will and reason, as in the cases cited by one of the writers above. Sorry I’m not fleshing this out more but hopefully you can see where I’m going with it… feel free to comment, or not as the case may be!
birdchest
I
itinerant1
Guest
I must take issue with your crass reductionist view of the mind. You will never find a thought in your head, and your choke hold scenario does not prove your position. The most that it implies is that thinking has some necessary relation to the proper functioning of the brain. It does not imply of necessity an identification of thought with the neuro-physiological processes of the brain, or of any physical organ. For thinking to occur there must exist a relative integrity of the brain and its function. However, the brain provides only a necessary but not a sufficient condition for thinking.
It is agreed that thoughts and images are in the mind, but I will differ by claiming that mind cannot be reduced to brain or its functions. Also, thoughts differ from images. Some people have erroneously identified the two, i.e. Darwin, Hume, etc.
Of course, Catholics cannot accept your view here as it contradicts the Bible and Church doctrine. We do not require the use of the body after death to be conscious and think, though our being is incomplete until the Resurrection.
For instance, we pray to Saints in Heaven, who answer our prayers though they are presently disembodied; and saints who have died have appeared to people on earth.
Also, Christ told the thief on the cross he would be with Him that day in Paradise. The thief would not be in Paradise if he could not think or was not conscious after death.
Furthermore, the New Testament has examples of visions that take place out of the body, and St. Paul says he did not know if he was in the body or out of the body during one vision. Hence, according to the apostle, one can be conscious out of the body. In any case, it does your argument no good to quote 1 Corinthians because St. Paul’s understanding of the body, soul, and spirit of man radically contradicts your position.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Why is it that we say “a penny for your thoughts” but people always put in their two cents worth"?
In any case, you are on the right track about the mind and the materialist view being contrary to the faith. See my post # 203. I will be arguing from an Aristotelian-Thomistic position without using the usual technical philosophical terminology and explanations.
If any one is interested in an introductory level discussion of the mind-body subject from an Aristotelian position, I recommend Intellect: Mind over Matter by Mortimer J. Adler. Also, for a general introduction to Aristotelian philosophy, I must recommend Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy by M.J. Adler.
I don’t see that the analogy with physical sight and the Beatific Vision helps much. So I would not resort to it, as presented, to explain anything about the mind-body subject.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I don’t know where you picked up these rather vague and unusual ideas. They hardly seem philosophically defensible, but you are welcome to try.
M
Moontown_Rabbit
Guest
I was simply responding to the notion that “thoughts do not travel very far down the neck”. It seems that the illusion of brain/mind equivalence results from confusing mental experience with sensory events, which in turn tends to focus our attention on the brain. The examples of non-sensory thinking I listed were merely hints that the mind can easily escape the tyranny of the body. I have no doubt that Aristotle demonstrates this in a much more rigorous fashion.
G
GEddie
Guest
Mental experience normally begins with 'sensory events;" which btw are not just dependent upon our brain but on our bodily sensorium (eyes, nose, skin, limbs, etc). The fact we can think abstractly simply means that our language skills (again part of the brain) enables us to extend the experience of our senses into abstract categories. Abstract thoughts still live in your head.
“Tyranny of the body??!!!” Everybody should have to experience sense deprivation temporarily to understand that there is no such thing. Our bodies do not limit us, they enable us: without them we would know only “darkness and silence” (to quote Ambrose Bierce).
ICXC NIKA.
G
GEddie
Guest
The fact that the human sensorium is limited is hardly new; man has known for millenniums that the canine hearing and nose, or the accuracy of birds’ eyes, are far better than ours, for example. This doesn’t imply that the sensorium limits us; our mind uses what we can sense to fill in the blanks. (And all animal sensoria are limited in different ways: birds have very poor noses, while dogs have poorer color vision than human beings, generally.)
The sensorium actually enables our knowing, although to a limited extent. Likewise, although your head’s abilities are finite, it enables, not limits, you. To say that “the brain limits reason” implies that we would know better without it, which makes zero sense.
ICXC NIKA
T
tonyrey
Guest
If thoughts are in your head please specify the exact location and explain how you are responsible for them. Can you measure the length of a thought?
T
tonyrey
Guest
No misunderstanding. In this case it is not entirely reasonable to believe the two correlating events have a causative relationship. The fact that the rat dies does not prove that the mind dies for the simple reason that the mind is intangible.
And if he tells you nothing?
In precisely which part of the brain? Is that part of the brain responsible for the decision?
What exactly are “we”?
Do you mean we are not really conscious of anything? Do we imagine that we are concious?!
You are begging the question by equating the mind with the brain!
How do you know that? Have you been inside a person’s mind?
Do you regard the brain-damaged person as responsible for his/her thoughts and actions? Does he/she lose the** right to life** in such a situation?
Emotions obviously have an effect on the body but they do not always **originate **in the body. How do you explain the fact that we can induce emotions?
G
GEddie
Guest
Can you measure the length of a flash of light, or that of a sound or smell? That doesn’t make them less physical.
What is the “exact” location of a musical note played in an auditorium? It begins in the mechanism of the instrument that played it, but reflects all over at the speed of sound. Likewise, thoughts have a locus within our heads (where depends on the nature of the thought; visual images use the visual centers, etc) but travel around the mechanism by association so that “where” is not all that important.
How are “you” responsible for them? Simply: “you” are the bodily being whose head generates them. No one else will ever generate the same thought, however similar the content of his or her thoughts, because no one else will ever again walk around in the same body, at the same time, having the same experiences, and recording them to the same head.
BTW, “responsible for thoughts” implies that we have full conscious command of what we think; whereas in human life that is usually not the case.
ICXC NIKA.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I see now what you were trying to say. You might be interested in the two books by Mortimer J. Adler I listed earlier. They are written at the introductory level and can help with clarifying how to think and what to think about the issue.
We want to make the necessary distinction between the knowledge our senses give us in sensory experience or sense perceptions, and concepts or conceptual knowledge in the intellect. Sense knowledge is of particular things perceived in the world, this tree or this circle. Concepts or conceptual knowledge is universal. Universals do not exist in nature as universals. You will never, ever see a universal thing in nature.
The concept of tree or “treeness” is universal and denotes all plants classified as trees. We perceive a particular tree with our eyes and the intellect abstracts the universal aspects of “treeness” from the particular sensory image in the act of knowing. The intellect or reason then judges this thing seen to be a tree. The intellect, thus, depends on the senses for knowledge.
The body is not really a tyrant, the intellect needs the body, but it rises above the particular knowledge given by the physical sense and abstracts the universal elements or characteristics present therein.
If the intellect was a physical organ or brain process it would be absolutely incapable of knowing universals. As previously stated, you will never encounter a universal thing in nature. Every physical thing is a particular thing. This molecule, this quasar, this gazelle, and so on. Since physical things must always be particular things, and our concepts, being universal, therefore cannot be particular physical things. Concepts are necessarily non-physical. They are circumscribed by the limitations peculiar to physical matter and energy.
One more time for emphasis: we perceive, for example, particular circles of various sizes, but none of these circles is absolutely perfect. However, we can conceive the perfect circle in our idea of circleness itself. The concept of* circleness* is a universal and cannot exist in nature or in the brain because all physical things are particular things. Every brain process is a particular physical thing.
The mind or intellect and the brain clearly interact. Hence, brain activity related to thinking is detectable. Yet, neuro-physiological events or brain states are not themselves the thoughts. No matter what technology we develop, no one will ever find a “thought” or “concept” in the brain. Historically, the brain-mind identification and all the related pseudo-problems developed as an over-reaction to Descartes extreme dualism.
Images in the mind differ from concepts. Images are particular, they are of particular things. Some folks have tried to escape from the fact of concepts being universal by claiming they are just generalized or vague images. This does not fly. There can be no such thing as a generalized image. And vague images cannot account for the very specific and universal ideas we have of such things as the perfect triangle or circle, expressible mathematically in a very precise formula, but only approximated in the external physical world by particular and imperfect triangles and circles, or the images the accompany our concepts. When we think circleness, we also have an accompanying image of a particular and imperfect circle. Some people confuse the image in their mind with the idea or concept.
Also, regarding another aspect of mind, our thoughts do not “go out” to space when we know cosmic realities. Rather the mind becomes those things in a unique and non-material way. Those cosmic realities that exist physically in themselves in the external world, do in the act of knowing, also exist in the mind in a radically different way–a non-physical and intentional way of existing. One can have Saturn with its rings non-physically in his mind, but obviously Saturn is too big to fit physically in anyone’s brain. Hence, the soul can potentially become all things in the spiritual act of knowing.
Clear as mud?
N
NowAgnostic
Guest
This is another one of these cases where the so-called philosophia perennis is simply not up to the task of dealing with modern advances in science, this time in things like machine learning and classification. Machines can be easily trained to do the things the “immaterial intellect” is doing here. Which makes the conclusion suspect.
Of course, one can still believe in an immaterial intellect if he so chooses. But the reasons are now less than compelling.
Of course, one can still believe in an immaterial intellect if he so chooses. But the reasons are now less than compelling.
In what sense, then, do universals really “exist” or are they just human constructs, if they do not exist in nature?
Or, it’s just a classification invented by man. What about sycamore trees, or elm trees? What about deciduous trees vs. evergreen trees? Is every genus and species in botany a “universal”? What about sub-species? What exists as a “universal” and what is just a human classification? In the end, all definitions are made by man.
Or, the brain, with its billions of neurons, is a very efficient and well-trained classifier, and there is no need for an “immaterial intellect” to perform the classifcation.
Or, the “abstraction” (classification) is itself done via physical processes. It is now well-known that this can be done.
Not so. All that is necessary is a method for classification, which can be done via a physical process.
A concept is a classifier which defines a set. Saying it is “non-physical” is like saying, a set of physical objects is “non-physical”.
So we have a shape classifier, and we can define the perfect prototype.
But each particular classification the brain does is a particular physical thing, and the learning is a particular physical thing also. You’re assuming this “universal” somehow “exists” although it doesn’t really “exist in nature”.
Look, we can train computers to make these kinds of classifications. We can (name removed by moderator)ut an image and it spits out “tree”. Does the computer have a mind? Is the “concept” somehow in the computer? To the argument that the computer had to be trained, I would respond so does the brain.
But a prototype for classification can account for these “very specific and universal ideas”. Granted a shape can be defined for which all points are equidistant from the center (a perfect circle). You’re assuming that the universal “circle” or “perfect circle” somehow exists a priori, but the alternative view is that humans classified shapes into “circles”, as there are round things in nature, and then once they had that classifier they can define what fits it perfectly once they had the necessary mathematical tools.
Well, it also exists in the brain, as the neuronal connections are made associated with the learning.
But the information is easily stored in someone’s brain.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Your comparison between machines and intellect is superficial at best and has nothing to do with real science. There isn’t a machine created that possesses conscious awareness of anything, including classification.
There is no real relation between a machine that classifies and the intellect that abstracts the universal elements from particular things.
You object to what I said about universals, but then proceed to demonstrate that you do not understand the nature of universals, how they exist in the mind, and what about particular things in nature have universal characteristics. You should understand a position before you argue against it. So, I must wait until you to get up to speed on the subject.
Being in the computer field myself, I have never met a machine that exhibits intentionality.
I
itinerant1
Guest
This is an unproven, and I maintain *unprovable *assumption.
Not in the least.
Answer to your first question: No
Answer to your second question: No
To argue that the brain is trained in the same way a computer is programmed is to understand neither computers or brains. It is also to argue from your conclusion, which in the end proves nothing whatsoever.
There is no a priori assumption. Your explantion does not account for the nature of mathematical ideas in themselves, only the fact that they exist.
Again, this is your unproven, and I maintain *unprovable *assumption.
G
GEddie
Guest
Please elaborate. There is a huge gap between “the physicality of the mind” (which makes perfect sense to me) and “consciousness as an illusion.”
If consciousness is an illusion, is there not something behind the illusion; comparable to the religious experiences earlier referred to? And How would that square with all our mental experiences originating in neurochemistry?
ICXC NIKA.
M
Moontown_Rabbit
Guest
The tyranny of the body refers to a number of things. It can mean concupiscence, or the tendency of passion to override reason, or the difficulty that we encounter in treating each other as supernatural beings rather than blobs of flesh controlled by an arithmetic logic unit. It is also a condemnation of the materialism that has crept into the nooks and crannies of human thought like a noxious oil slick. In response to Ambrose Bierce one might consider the teaching of St. John of the Cross who said “the endurance of darkness is preparation for great light” and “it is great wisdom to know how to be silent.”
- Status