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".

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by InReverse]

I would think that one would have too find a part of the brain that is responsible for self awareness. I suspect that those who seek to find definitive explanations for all human activities will run into a problem with polysystemic activities, ie hand/eye coordination. I suspect that self awareness is such a case, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

An interesting case in that regard is the cooperation between the sensory and memory centers that allows us to have a 180+ degree field of view.

[Nilloc James]

I find it telling that very few proponents of dualism are willing to let me dissect their brain before their death.

[InReverse]

I would think that one would have too find a part of the brain that is responsible for self awareness.

Probably not even that will be sufficient to understand self-awareness from an objective point of view .There is still a lot of research to be done. For now we only have correlations, not detailed models.

However, it is obvious that the material does influence the mental in quite intricate ways.
Also, self-awareness is not permanent (we do sleep don't we), so the brain can have states in which self-awareness is not present, but can the opposite be true (can self-awareness be "felt" without the existence of the brain)?

[instantc]

Also, self-awareness is not permanent (we do sleep don't we), so the brain can have states in which self-awareness is not present, but can the opposite be true (can self-awareness be "felt" without the existence of the brain)?

Well, I would offer a simple argument. Physicalists hold that pain and C-Fibers are in fact identical. Since by pain we mean the direct experience of pain, it is logically impossible for someone to be mistaken about being in pain. However, we can imagine being in pain without C-Fibers firing in our brains, but if the two are identical, then this kind of fake pain would be logically contradictory. Since identity is a necessary relation, and it is logically possible for there to be pain but no C-Fibers firing, then that means that the experience of pain is not simply C-Fibers firing in the brain.

[keithprosser3]

Physicalists hold that pain and C-Fibers are in fact identical.

Is it a fact that physicalists think that?

[instantc]

Physicalists hold that pain and C-Fibers are in fact identical.

Is it a fact that physicalists think that?

Perhaps that's an unfair generalization, some do though.

[scourge99]

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)

There are no good arguments for dualism. Thus , dualists usually argue against the alternatives which doesn't actually do anything to support dualism. Its like how creationists argue against evolution with the faulty assumption that proving evolution wrong will make creationism more credible.

Furthermore, dualists can only reconcile the conflicting evidence (such as you have presented) by making unverifiable explanations.

Question: "Is evidence from neuroscience sufficient for one to reject the mind-brain dualism?"

Yes. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that demonstrate that the mind is the product of the brain despite the fact that we don't yet understand exactly how brains give rise to minds.

If not, how does one reconcile the facts above (and many others) with the separation between mind and brain.

By making unverifiable claims and fallaciously believing that poking holes in alternatives to dualism supports dualism.

Also, how would you disprove "minds are what brains do".

Several ways. One way would be a mind existing without a brain. That would be pretty damning evidence against materialism as well. That's why lots of dualists are so gullible to near death experience stories. Sadly, the evidence in support of near death experiences is no better than the evidence that supports alien abductions. There is zero evidence to support them. They are all stories. Some scientists have spent large amounts of money trying to find evidence in support of these stories. All have met with failure.

[bluethread]

Some scientists have spent large amounts of money trying to find evidence in support of these stories. All have met with failure.

No, the successes have just been declared "near death". There was a time when death was defined as not breathing, no heartbeat and now no brain activity. If it were not for grave robbers, we might still think that people are dead when they stop breathing. The argument of naturalists against supernaturalists is that the claims can not be empirically verified. The supernaturalists then say, "Da, if you could prove it empirically, it would not be considered supernatural. So, for the supernaturalists the problem with naturalists is the exclusion of the unproven from the possible. However, there are many things that are extrapolated by the naturalists. Therefore, the ultimate difference isn't hard facts versus speculation. it is a difference in acceptable and unacceptable methodologies.

[InReverse]

Physicalists hold that pain and C-Fibers are in fact identical.

Is it a fact that physicalists think that?

Perhaps that's an unfair generalization, some do though.

Taken from wiki: "if we accept supervenience physicalism, the pain someone would feel if electrocuted would supervene on the firing of their c-fibres. Whereas if we accept reductive physicalism, the pain would be those c-fibres firing". I don't know where they project, but I wouldn't say pain is identical to their firing, but to some activity that follows.