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".

[mgb]

Imagine a group of scientists who never encountered a computer before. They begin an investigation and start measuring everything inside the machine. They discover electromagnetic pulses and ascertain that there is a pattern to these pulses.

"Look," one of them says, "how these systems and subsystems are cross-referenced and are talking to each other!"

"It's binary! It's binary! It's talking in binary! It's like it can do mathematics."

"And look," another says "at how these overarching systems are creating what seem to be high level distillations of these subroutines."

"It's intelligent. Maaaan it's intelligent! Amazzzzzing!"

Another rushes in, clipboard in hand;

"We got the ascii. Listen to what we got so far; 'Through the veils of morning sunrise I swear I heard a lark call your name...' It's in english. It's thinking in english!"

Another scientist - the one with the Translvanian accent - unable to contain himself, runs into the street;

"It's aliiiiive! It's aliiiiive!"

As the scientists work there a subtle hints between them concerning a shared Nobel Prize; scientists discover the mind! There are also unspoken resentments concerning who discovered what first and who should be excluded from the hall of fame...not all of the have worked equally on this.

Presently one scientist discovers an underground cable leading from the computer to another room. Following this cable they discover that it leads to a human operator who is sending instructions to the computer. They all gather around the operator, in silence. There's no need to explain what is happening here. The life and intelligence are coming from the operator; they are not intrinsic to the computer itself; it is not thinking, nor is it alive. The structural systems, subsystems and connections mimic intelligent thought, naturally, since they are constructed by an intelligent being, but they are not, by themselves, intelligent.

The scientists mistakes are elementary; they confused physical systems with the source of those systems. The stopped at a point along the chain of cause and effect and imagined they had reached the source when, in fact, the source was in another room.

So it is with neuroscience and the brain. These scientists are stopping at the brain and imagining it is the source. They have not discovered the mind; they have discovered an instrument of the mind, a physical image of mind that has mindlike qualities, but is not mind.

Here's an interesting article about John Lorber's work the first article in this link-

http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/Sc ... -Brain.pdf

[instantc]

The link doesn't work.

Instead of having me read 20+ page long philosophy papers so i can decipher the cryptic concepts and nonstandard definitions you use, isn't it a bit more prudent that you simply explain what you mean?

Alright, there is a difference between conceiving A without conceiving B and conceiving A without B. I'll illustrate with a clear example of a triangle and its well known mathematical property. One can conceive a triangle without conceiving that the sum of its angles is 180 degrees, but one cannot conceive a triangle, the sum of angles of which is not 180 degrees. Similarly, one can conceive water without conceiving that it can be divided to smaller parts, but one cannot conceive a world where there is water, but no water molecules, since the two are the same. According to the article, some accuse Descartes of confusing this distinction, but the more general opinion is that this is not where the argument goes wrong.

[scourge99]

Imagine a group of scientists who never encountered a computer before. They begin an investigation and start measuring everything inside the machine. They discover electromagnetic pulses and ascertain that there is a pattern to these pulses.

"Look," one of them says, "how these systems and subsystems are cross-referenced and are talking to each other!"

"It's binary! It's binary! It's talking in binary! It's like it can do mathematics."

"And look," another says "at how these overarching systems are creating what seem to be high level distillations of these subroutines."

"It's intelligent. Maaaan it's intelligent! Amazzzzzing!"

Another rushes in, clipboard in hand;

"We got the ascii. Listen to what we got so far; 'Through the veils of morning sunrise I swear I heard a lark call your name...' It's in english. It's thinking in english!"

Another scientist - the one with the Translvanian accent - unable to contain himself, runs into the street;

"It's aliiiiive! It's aliiiiive!"

As the scientists work there a subtle hints between them concerning a shared Nobel Prize; scientists discover the mind! There are also unspoken resentments concerning who discovered what first and who should be excluded from the hall of fame...not all of the have worked equally on this.

Presently one scientist discovers an underground cable leading from the computer to another room. Following this cable they discover that it leads to a human operator who is sending instructions to the computer. They all gather around the operator, in silence. There's no need to explain what is happening here. The life and intelligence are coming from the operator; they are not intrinsic to the computer itself; it is not thinking, nor is it alive. The structural systems, subsystems and connections mimic intelligent thought, naturally, since they are constructed by an intelligent being, but they are not, by themselves, intelligent.

The scientists mistakes are elementary; they confused physical systems with the source of those systems. The stopped at a point along the chain of cause and effect and imagined they had reached the source when, in fact, the source was in another room.

So it is with neuroscience and the brain. These scientists are stopping at the brain and imagining it is the source. They have not discovered the mind; they have discovered an instrument of the mind, a physical image of mind that has mindlike qualities, but is not mind.

Here's an interesting article about John Lorber's work the first article in this link-

http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/Sc ... -Brain.pdf

The problem with your analogy is you don't explain WHAT IT IS ANALOGOUS TOO. What is the cable leading into another room analogous too? Magic? Some undiscovered major force of physics that operates at the macro level but we have somehow missed until now?

There are no hidden variables for consciousness to hide behind. Physics, at the level of the brain/mind is causally closed. Let that sink in for a moment about what that means.

You are left proposing magic or some force that we should have detected.... Or, the most reasonable conclusion that is repeatedly reinforced and strengthened by every new discovery in neuroscience, that the mind is the product of some combination of physics as we know it.
[/center]

[mgb]

Physics, at the level of the brain/mind is causally closed.

It is most certainly not. If it was it could explain everything, eg. the conscious self.

[scourge99]

Physics, at the level of the brain/mind is causally closed.

It is most certainly not. If it was it could explain everything, eg. the conscious self.

Can we predict the weather? We can't very well beyond a week or so. Is there some magical or mystical force pervading weather patterns then? I think not. I think the reason we can't predict it very accurately is because the weather is extremely complex. Likewise the brain with its billions of neurons is also extremely complex.

Chess is another good example. We know all the rules of chess but knowing the rules doesn't make you a good chess player. Just because we don't know how to play chess perfectly doesn't mean there is some mystical or unknown force involved with chess. Its merely a problem of complexity.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 65 by scourge99]

You cannot compare weather patterns to structured biological entities. There is a qualitative difference. Chess requires a mind to play it, not just the rules of chess.

[scourge99]

[Replying to post 65 by scourge99]

You cannot compare weather patterns to structured biological entities. There is a qualitative difference.

What's the qualitative difference that makes the comparison invalid? That its damaging to your argument?

Chess requires a mind to play it, not just the rules of chess.

Computers don't have minds do they? So what is happening when a computer plays chess against a human? Or a computer plays chess against another computer? Are they not actually playing chess?

[mgb]

[Replying to post 65 by scourge99]

You cannot compare weather patterns to structured biological entities. There is a qualitative difference.

What's the qualitative difference that makes the comparison invalid? That its damaging to your argument?

Chess requires a mind to play it, not just the rules of chess.

Computers don't have minds do they? So what is happening when a computer plays chess against a human? Or a computer plays chess against another computer? Are they not actually playing chess?

The qualitative difference is the moderation of natural laws by directing them towards a specific end. The computer is only an extension of human intelligence.

[keithprosser3]

Furthermore, classical physics didn't get turned on its head. Classical physics still accurately represents most events we encounter. Its not as though apples started floating into the sky when Einstein developed relativity. This notion of a radical paradigm shifts is a dishonest exaggeration often peddled by religious apologists that crumbles when examined.

I am not sure I appreciate being lumped in with religious apologists, and I certainly don't like to be called dishonest, even indirectly! Apples did not stop falling when Einstein developed relativity, but our conception of gravity changed from being a force to being the curvature of space - I think that was a pretty radical change, and the idea that physics was fundamentally statistical was so radical even Einstein didn't accept it - God, he insisted, does not play dice. But nature plays dice none the less. I don't think it is dishonest to call those alterations in world-view paradigm shifts.

The small problem I referred to is the failure to turn 'near certainty' that consciousness is non-dualistic into a respectable theory, leave alone producing a working artificial consciousness. There is just one little corner of the materialistic world view where we don't seem to be able make any real progress... ruddy consciousness!

I think that apparently small problems can have big consequences. It is as well to pay attention to oddities in science - to quote Asimov, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

I hope that consciousness can be tamed, i.e. brought within the ambit of monistic materialism as it is currently constituted, but how long are we supposed to wait for a decent theory of consciousness to turn up before we give up and accept that maybe - just maybe - there is more to the universe than we suspected? Of course I don't mean anything supernatural or divine, (which I suspect Scourge99 suspects me of - he doesn't know me very well or he wouldn't have suggested it).

What that 'new thing' might be I cannot imagine - but it will be exciting, and who knows? It might even make internet debates about consciousness (and even worse those interminable free-will 'debates'!) slightly less repetitive!

[scourge99]

Furthermore, classical physics didn't get turned on its head. Classical physics still accurately represents most events we encounter. Its not as though apples started floating into the sky when Einstein developed relativity. This notion of a radical paradigm shifts is a dishonest exaggeration often peddled by religious apologists that crumbles when examined.

I am not sure I appreciate being lumped in with religious apologists

Well, don't use bad arguments like them then.

and I certainly don't like to be called dishonest, even indirectly!

You are not dishonest, as far as I can tell. The dishonest comment was directed towards apologists who knowingly use deceptive arguments.

Apples did not stop falling when Einstein developed relativity, but our conception of gravity changed from being a force to being the curvature of space - I think that was a pretty radical change,

My point is that all previous experimental findings STILL hold even if we discover something new such as relativity. Apples still fall at the speed predicted and planets still orbit as expected. The same will be true about all our current scientific findings of the brain/mind no matter what we discover. For example, we will still be able to predict people's simple choices before they make them and people's cognitive capabilities will still be directly related to the state of their brain. That is why this notion of a paradigm shift is deceptive. It doesn't turn anything on its head in nearly the dramatic way its proposed.

and the idea that physics was fundamentally statistical was so radical even Einstein didn't accept it - God, he insisted, does not play dice. But nature plays dice none the less.

I believe Einstein said that in regards to the conclusions about quantum mechanics, not relativity.

By the way, we still don't know the correct way to interpret quantum mechanics.

http://io9.com/5981842/why-quantum-mech ... rn-physics

The small problem I referred to is the failure to turn 'near certainty' that consciousness is non-dualistic into a respectable theory, leave alone producing a working artificial consciousness. There is just one little corner of the materialistic world view where we don't seem to be able make any real progress... ruddy consciousness!

I think that apparently small problems can have big consequences. It is as well to pay attention to oddities in science - to quote Asimov, "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

I hope that consciousness can be tamed, i.e. brought within the ambit of monistic materialism as it is currently constituted, but how long are we supposed to wait for a decent theory of consciousness to turn up before we give up and accept that maybe - just maybe - there is more to the universe than we suspected? Of course I don't mean anything supernatural or divine, (which I suspect Scourge99 suspects me of - he doesn't know me very well or he wouldn't have suggested it).

I think its pointless to try and predict what we will or won't figure out in anything but the near future. So i don't know if we will figure out how to create artificial consciousness. But even if we have a complete understanding of consciousness, it seems like it would be enormously difficult to replicate the structure of a brain and its billions of neurons.

From what I have read, I think the computational theory of the mind has shown a lot of promise.