Brain / Mind

[InReverse]

Here are some facts (the list should be longer but it can be extended if needed):
-Damage to certain brain areas causes predictable loss of function. There is list with types of agnosias here.
There are also documented cases of damage to functions such as memory formation.(H.M.)
-Split brain patients cannot verbally relate to information presented only to their right hemisphere, but can nonetheless react to it unconsciously. (ref)
-Certain substances alter the function of the brain (by known mechanisms) and also the state of consciousness (alcohol, drugs, anesthetics)

Question: "Is evidence from neuroscience sufficient for one to reject the mind-brain dualism?"
If not, how does one reconcile the facts above (and many others) with the separation between mind and brain. Also, how would you disprove "minds are what brains do".

[Goat]

His book is from 1975,.. Our technology and understanding has come a long way in the last 38 years you know.

Citation needed here, what progress exactly has neuroscience made regarding the mind/body problem? What is different in that regard now compared to 50 years ago?

If anything, we have become more skeptical towards general determinism, and realized that some things in the world just don't work in a way we would expect them to.

And my comment about WIlder Penderfeld remains. He wasn't a 'neuroscientist'. he was a brain surgeon. Yes, he did some research with brain stimulatoin, but, he died in 1976..and that quote is the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorence'

Argument from ignorance claims that a proposition is false since it has not been proven to be true or vice versa. It is not an argument from ignorance to say that in the light of logical arguments and our current knowledge, proposition A seems more likely to be untrue than true.

Are atheists justified in presuming that Christian God does not exist, even though it hasn't been proven to be false? Isn't that an argument from ignorance according to your definition as well? Or might it just be a justified default position? We don't know how to explain the seemingly indeterminate quantum events, and evidence suggests that it cannot be explained with classical physics, is that another argument from ignorance or perhaps a justified assumption? Could you elaborate and back up your claim a little bit?

For one thing, we have MRI's , and can see what parts of the brain show activitiy depending on the situation presented.. something that was not available in 1975.While our technology is not quite there, we are in the begining stages of being able to map the brain, and the brain function.

http://www.medgadget.com/2013/05/mappin ... h-phd.html

Once we do that, there is a much higher potential to figure out the question' how does the brain generate the mind'. We aren't there yet, but to say we did not make progress is incorrect.

[instantc]

For one thing, we have MRI's , and can see what parts of the brain show activitiy depending on the situation presented.. something that was not available in 1975.While our technology is not quite there, we are in the begining stages of being able to map the brain, and the brain function.

We have known for long time that there is a connection between consciousness and brain activity. While we may now have an idea of which parts of brain activity are connected to which states of consciousness, there is zero progress towards finding out what the nature of the connection is, let alone reducing the mind to physical activity.

Once we do that, there is a much higher potential to figure out the question' how does the brain generate the mind'. We aren't there yet, but to say we did not make progress is incorrect.

It is sheer speculation at best in this case to say that once we have figured out A, perhaps we can then begin discovering B. It is good to be optimistic, but the above speculation doesn't say anything about what we will find out once we start discovering the connection between the two.

[Goat]

For one thing, we have MRI's , and can see what parts of the brain show activitiy depending on the situation presented.. something that was not available in 1975.While our technology is not quite there, we are in the begining stages of being able to map the brain, and the brain function.

We have known for long time that there is a connection between consciousness and brain activity. While we may now have an idea of which parts of brain activity are connected to which states of consciousness, there is zero progress towards finding out what the nature of the connection is, let alone reducing the mind to physical activity.

Once we do that, there is a much higher potential to figure out the question' how does the brain generate the mind'. We aren't there yet, but to say we did not make progress is incorrect.

It is sheer speculation at best in this case to say that once we have figured out A, perhaps we can then begin discovering B. It is good to be optimistic, but the above speculation doesn't say anything about what we will find out once we start discovering the connection between the two.

Perhaps, but we have tools now, and can do many things when examining the brain we never were able to do before. The process is happening , and we understand much more than we have ever before. To say that we will never understand the connection, or to say that because we don't know that it points to a dualism is sheer speculation too.

[instantc]

Perhaps, but we have tools now, and can do many things when examining the brain we never were able to do before. The process is happening , and we understand much more than we have ever before. To say that we will never understand the connection, or to say that because we don't know that it points to a dualism is sheer speculation too.

I agree, the fact that we don't understand the connection does not point to dualism, but the fact that the two exhibit fundamentally different properties points to dualism. To say that we will never understand the connection would be unwarranted and counterproductive.

[mgb]

“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

In practice there is a lot more to it than that because along with observing nature there is the subjective interpretation of what those observations mean. Different people will interpret them in different ways.

[Goat]

Perhaps, but we have tools now, and can do many things when examining the brain we never were able to do before. The process is happening , and we understand much more than we have ever before. To say that we will never understand the connection, or to say that because we don't know that it points to a dualism is sheer speculation too.

I agree, the fact that we don't understand the connection does not point to dualism, but the fact that the two exhibit fundamentally different properties points to dualism. To say that we will never understand the connection would be unwarranted and counterproductive.

I would say that because of the fact if the brain gets altered, you alter the mind points away from duelism

[instantc]

Perhaps, but we have tools now, and can do many things when examining the brain we never were able to do before. The process is happening , and we understand much more than we have ever before. To say that we will never understand the connection, or to say that because we don't know that it points to a dualism is sheer speculation too.

I agree, the fact that we don't understand the connection does not point to dualism, but the fact that the two exhibit fundamentally different properties points to dualism. To say that we will never understand the connection would be unwarranted and counterproductive.

I would say that because of the fact if the brain gets altered, you alter the mind points away from duelism

I agree that it points away from, although does not disprove, Cartesian dualism which posits the existence of a soul. However, there is no need to subscribe for either extreme, I think it seems likely that the mind is product of the brain, and that it cannot be reduced to physical brain activity, as the two have different properties. I am not saying that property dualism has been shown to be true, but in the light of present knowledge it seems reasonable to default to that direction. That is so for someone who is looking for the true state of affairs and not a materialist breakthrough.

[keithprosser3]

Bravo, Instantc!

I think that materialists can be over-defensive at times. Often you see posts that insist that everything in the materialist garden is hunky dory and there are no real problems anywhere.

But there are problems. There are questions that materialism hasn't got very good answers to - consciousness is one, the original of life and the origin of the universe are (at least arguably) others.

I'll go as far as saying because we materialists don't have all the answers to all conceivable questions, the materialist position does involve an element of faith.

I am confident in my atheistic/materialistic position not because I have all the answers to all questions, but because I know enough to rule out at last some 'classes' of pseudo-solutions. It is like a crossword with just a few words missing - the gaps are obvious to see, but there are enough words intersecting and mutually re-inforcing already in to know that what words are done are correct and what is left isn't going to change anything very much.

[Ooberman]

There are questions that materialism hasn't got very good answers to - consciousness is one, the original of life and the origin of the universe are (at least arguably) others.

While I'm sure this will ruffle a few feathers, Daniel Dennet, et al, are suggesting there is no problem for materialism to explain consciousness.

They are under the impression that thinking of the Mind as a separate entity is akin to thinking phlogiston exists to explain the process of burning.

Or, that like the ancients thought the Morning Star and Evening Star were two different stars. Turns out they were both Venus.


Likewise, the Mind is what the brain does. There is no real mystery except from those who seem to desire there to be "more" to ourselves.

IMO, I am content being an Ape, if I am an Ape. I can still be the best Ape I can be.

[keithprosser3]

Don't worry - -you aren't ruffling my feathers... Let me start my defence of my position by asking a question - how would you build a machine that saw a red object as red? Getting a machine to measure wavelength doesn't count - it has to see red as you or I see red.