Brain, Mind & Neuroscience

[inocente]

Originally Posted by entelechy1

Now, there are certainly philosophers out there who claim to have no problem with this. But my humble opinion is that they have only succeeded in kicking the can down the road. The problem is at bottom a metaphysical one: without 'form', or something like it, *nothing whatsoever* - not even a quark or an electron - can be a unit, for even these perdure and exhibit contrary states (now in this position, now in that one, now at this velocity, now at that one).

So if we are forced by our experience to admit forms-and-substances at the level of the quark, by what prejudice do we reject it at the level of the mind? To the objection that brain damage leads to alteration in personality and cognitive functioning we might say: of course you don't have a complete/whole mind here, because you don't have a complete brain. Aristotle would describe the loss of essential attributes here as a privation. And incomplete brain cannot be a fully actual brain.

One possibility for form of the mind is on these lines.

We can’t describe the form of an elephant in terms of its constituent quarks and electrons, yet we can describe the elephant by progressing through levels (atoms, chemicals, cells, fauna, etc.).

In the same way it’s almost certainly naive to expect that we can describe the mind in terms of neurons and electro-chemicals, we more likely need to model patterns of firing neurons, then patterns of those patterns, and so on to reach to the form of the mind.

[Sair]

Originally Posted by inocente

One possibility for form of the mind is on these lines.

We can’t describe the form of an elephant in terms of its constituent quarks and electrons, yet we can describe the elephant by progressing through levels (atoms, chemicals, cells, fauna, etc.).

In the same way it’s almost certainly naive to expect that we can describe the mind in terms of neurons and electro-chemicals, we more likely need to model patterns of firing neurons, then patterns of those patterns, and so on to reach to the form of the mind.

That makes a lot of sense, and in a way undermines the idea that neuroscience (or, indeed, the entire philosophical position of physicalism itself) is inherently reductionist (regardless of how it may be interpreted by some adherents and critics alike). It may well be fair to say that minds would not exist without neurons - but clearly it takes more than just a single neuron, or a random cluster of neurons, to give rise to a mind.

It may be - just to throw an idea out there - that the "emergentists" are right, and that minds are physically manifested by complex arrangements and interactions of atoms, molecules, cells, electical and chemical impulses; in much the same way as the entire intricate and beautiful (and, yes, even sometimes discordant and wholly unappealing) edifice of music is built upon the necessary foundation of sound waves, manifested by vibrations travelling through matter - without the matter, there would be no sound waves, and without the sound waves, there would be no music; but music, as such, is not reducible to the matter through which the sound waves travel, even if it may be described and explained entirely in terms of these phenomena.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by Sair

That makes a lot of sense, and in a way undermines the idea that neuroscience (or, indeed, the entire philosophical position of physicalism itself) is inherently reductionist (regardless of how it may be interpreted by some adherents and critics alike). It may well be fair to say that minds would not exist without neurons - but clearly it takes more than just a single neuron, or a random cluster of neurons, to give rise to a mind.

It may be - just to throw an idea out there - that the "emergentists" are right, and that minds are physically manifested by complex arrangements and interactions of atoms, molecules, cells, electical and chemical impulses; in much the same way as the entire intricate and beautiful (and, yes, even sometimes discordant and wholly unappealing) edifice of music is built upon the necessary foundation of sound waves, manifested by vibrations travelling through matter - without the matter, there would be no sound waves, and without the sound waves, there would be no music; but music, as such, is not reducible to the matter through which the sound waves travel, even if it may be described and explained entirely in terms of these phenomena.

I like your analogy to music. And of course it is the mind of the listener which interprets the sound, as well as the silence, the rests between the notes. There is a specialty field called the psychology of music that studies such things.

Where do you think metacognition (and metamemory) fit into this discussion of the mind? That is, thinking and reflecting about our own thought processes.

[levinas12]

Originally Posted by Sair

It may be - just to throw an idea out there - that the "emergentists" are right, and that minds are physically manifested by complex arrangements and interactions of atoms, molecules, cells, electical and chemical impulses; in much the same way as the entire intricate and beautiful (and, yes, even sometimes discordant and wholly unappealing) edifice of music is built upon the necessary foundation of sound waves, manifested by vibrations travelling through matter - without the matter, there would be no sound waves, and without the sound waves, there would be no music; but music, as such, is not reducible to the matter through which the sound waves travel, even if it may be described and explained entirely in terms of these phenomena.

Imagine someone goes into a museum and does a chemical analysis of a Rembrandt portrait. And never realizes it's a portrait and a Rembrandt to boot.

Of course, the portrait is the paint. But a chemical analysis alone would fail to reveal that the paint is really a portrait.

Farfetched? Well, maybe not. It is possible to do a neurological analysis of brain activities without realizing that we are dealing with a "person".

This does not mean that the "person" is some mysterious ectoplasm, or an immaterial entity, in addition to the body. No, the person and the human body are the same. But the meaning of a human body is quite extraordinary because it "discloses" a "person" just as the paint "discloses" Rembrandt.

[inocente]

Originally Posted by Sair

It may be - just to throw an idea out there - that the "emergentists" are right, and that minds are physically manifested by complex arrangements and interactions of atoms, molecules, cells, electical and chemical impulses; in much the same way as the entire intricate and beautiful (and, yes, even sometimes discordant and wholly unappealing) edifice of music is built upon the necessary foundation of sound waves, manifested by vibrations travelling through matter - without the matter, there would be no sound waves, and without the sound waves, there would be no music; but music, as such, is not reducible to the matter through which the sound waves travel, even if it may be described and explained entirely in terms of these phenomena.

Of course emergence is right, we're invincible.

I like the link with music, but don't think we should think of it in terms of atoms or cells. A really rough analogy (so rough it may mislead) is with the cellular automata below - really it's only pixels switching black or white according to a set of rules, but this forms moving patterns which are, as it were, entities in their own right. So in modelling thought, perhaps patterns of firing neurons form such "entities" which represent "thought atoms" and they in turn form patterns which are "thought phrases". I made my head hurt now.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

[WillP]

Originally Posted by Faith1960

Can anyone here refer me to some books recently written that explains the difference between the brain and the mind? If I'm understanding the topic correctly, we are to believe that the brain and mind are entirely two different entities, yet, with the little I know about neuroscience, and I'll admit, I know very little, this seems to be an impossibility. I'm trying to understand this and am doing a poor job of it.

Originally Posted by Faith1960

Can anyone here refer me to some books recently written that explains the difference between the brain and the mind? If I'm understanding the topic correctly, we are to believe that the brain and mind are entirely two different entities, yet, with the little I know about neuroscience, and I'll admit, I know very little, this seems to be an impossibility. I'm trying to understand this and am doing a poor job of it.

I wish I knew what people mean when they refer to the soul. I understand "brain".I even understand "mind" as it means the disposition of the brain's activity (eg. "to change one's mind" or to" make up one's mind" about this or that proposition.)

That being said, what exactly is a soul? Doesn't all functioning simply shut down at death? What is there that survives death? Certainly you can't seriously believe that one's personality survives death anymore than it can survive Alzheimer's or a frontal lobotomy---hence, don't you agree that all mental processes shut down at death? And don't you then have to agree that "soul" has no real referent?

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Sair

I'll take my +5 scythe of cutting to the chase and ask: what's the research program for verifying that the mind is a supernatural phenomenon?

Those who believe the mind is a subnatural phenomenon cannot have a research programme because they believe they are programmed by subnatural events to reject any other explanation but subnatural events! A delightful spectacle...

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by WillP

I wish I knew what people mean when they refer to the soul. I understand "brain".I even understand "mind" as it means the disposition of the brain's activity (eg. "to change one's mind" or to" make up one's mind" about this or that proposition.)

That being said, what exactly is a soul? Doesn't all functioning simply shut down at death? What is there that survives death? Certainly you can't seriously believe that one's personality survives death anymore than it can survive Alzheimer's or a frontal lobotomy---hence, don't you agree that all mental processes shut down at death? And don't you then have to agree that "soul" has no real referent?

Certainly you can't seriously believe your conclusions are determined by "the disposition of the brain's activity" thereby rendering you utterly incapable of making any decisions for yourself?!

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by inocente

Of course emergence is right, we're invincible.

Invincible atoms!

I like the link with music, but don't think we should think of it in terms of atoms or cells. A really rough analogy (so rough it may mislead) is with the cellular automata below - really it's only pixels switching black or white according to a set of rules, but this forms moving patterns which are, as it were, entities in their own right. So in modelling thought, perhaps patterns of firing neurons form such "entities" which represent "thought atoms" and they in turn form patterns which are "thought phrases". I made my head hurt now.

That is hardly surprising. A collection of events within the skull doesn't constitute a rational entity. The atomistic view of reality - including the mind inevitably reduces it to absurdity - as Camus and Sartre were not slow to realise.

Materialists who console themselves with the thought that eventually subnatural events will produce an explanation of themselves - which liberates them from all objective moral principles and all obligations to any higher authority. In their scheme of things neurotransmitter imbalances within the brain must be the main causes of all psychiatric conditions.

Given that the mind is merely is a product of electrical impulses how could it possibly be anything other than disruptions of the required currents and voltages? Unless some scientific genius succeeds in explaining the precise physical mechanism by which such a feat is accomplished it is inevitable that materialists will continue to be afflicted by severe headaches.....

[WillP]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Certainly you can't seriously believe your conclusions are determined by "the disposition of the brain's activity" thereby rendering you utterly incapable of making any decisions for yourself?!

As a matter of fact, there are neurologsts who have an emprical basis for the hypothesis that free will is an illusion. So, if that proves up, then I would have to say yes to your question.

Regardless, "consciousness" and the concept of a "subjetive self" are incrediblly complex and not easily understood by any of us. I do not, however, think that any form of mysticism will ever adequately yield fulfilling answers.

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by WillP

As a matter of fact, there are neurologsts who have an emprical basis for the hypothesis that free will is an illusion. So, if that proves up, then I would have to say yes to your question.

Evidence?

Regardless, "consciousness" and the concept of a "subjetive self" are incrediblly complex and not easily understood by any of us.

Incredible complexity is compelling evidence for Design rather than Chance...

I do not, however, think that any form of mysticism will ever adequately yield fulfilling answers.

Only facts - not opinions - further the discussion!

[levinas12]

Originally Posted by WillP

Regardless, "consciousness" and the concept of a "subjetive self" are incrediblly complex and not easily understood by any of us. I do not, however, think that any form of mysticism will ever adequately yield fulfilling answers.

Whatever is happening neurologically in the brain, it's an activity that "discloses" a world.

This sense of consciousness as "disclosure" is sometimes eclipsed in discussions of neurological activity.

But "disclosure" is the sine qua non - without it, we wouldn't even be talking about the brain.

[meltzerboy]

Originally Posted by WillP

As a matter of fact, there are neurologsts who have an emprical basis for the hypothesis that free will is an illusion. So, if that proves up, then I would have to say yes to your question.

Regardless, "consciousness" and the concept of a "subjetive self" are incrediblly complex and not easily understood by any of us. I do not, however, think that any form of mysticism will ever adequately yield fulfilling answers.

Which neurologists are these? If free will is a perceptual illusion (and not delusion), then it exists in the mind, whether or not in reality, the same as other perceptual phenomena. If it exists as such, then we can act on it. Welcome to psychology!

[WillP]

Originally Posted by tonyrey

Evidence?


Incredible complexity is compelling evidence for Design rather than Chance...


Only facts - not opinions - further the discussion!

On the contrary. Complexity is usually an emergent property in nature. Ant colonies, for example. There is no head engineer ant is there? So where does that design come from?

Snowflakes certainly yield complex designs which emerge from the simple to the highly decorative and, indeed, aesthically appealing.


If nature itself furnishes a rationale for complexity, what need is there to endow that natural process with a personality as you do? Hence, in light of the progress made over the last several decades in the natural sciences, I think you need a better argument than the "watchmaker in the forest".

[CopticChristian]

Originally Posted by Faith1960

Can anyone here refer me to some books recently written that explains the difference between the brain and the mind? If I'm understanding the topic correctly, we are to believe that the brain and mind are entirely two different entities, yet, with the little I know about neuroscience, and I'll admit, I know very little, this seems to be an impossibility. I'm trying to understand this and am doing a poor job of it.

Faith,

Youtube has a 6 hour series on the BBC "The Story of the Brain".....you will find the entire series fascinating...I have seen this attempt to distinguish brain and mind. Good luck...