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".

[InReverse]

For example, we can say that rain equals water falling down from clouds in droplets after condensing and becoming sufficiently heavy. Try to imagine a world where it is raining but water does not fall down from the sky. As rain equals falling water droplets, there is no logically possible world where there is rain but no falling water, the contradiction is easy to see. However, a world where there are minds but no brain activity does not seem to contradict itself logically.

I hate to point out the obvious but we're not thinking with the rain (yes, "rain"). So our problem is a bit harder to solve because regardless of where you consider "thinking" to be implemented, you're using that to study the problem. That's why I think a similar argument (logical) would be irrelevant in our case.

Well, before you can disregard the argument, you should show what's wrong with it. Either you must show why a world where there are minds but no brains contradicts itself logically, or you must show why this particular problem, exceptional as it is, is above the fundamental laws of logic.

I will not try to prove or disprove anything logically. What you basically said is that you can imagine a world where there are minds but no brains. There is nothing wrong with it. You simply ignored the fact that such strange cases are not observable in our world. Therefore I cannot bridge the gap between your conceived world and our world.

[instantc]

For example, we can say that rain equals water falling down from clouds in droplets after condensing and becoming sufficiently heavy. Try to imagine a world where it is raining but water does not fall down from the sky. As rain equals falling water droplets, there is no logically possible world where there is rain but no falling water, the contradiction is easy to see. However, a world where there are minds but no brain activity does not seem to contradict itself logically.

I hate to point out the obvious but we're not thinking with the rain (yes, "rain"). So our problem is a bit harder to solve because regardless of where you consider "thinking" to be implemented, you're using that to study the problem. That's why I think a similar argument (logical) would be irrelevant in our case.

Well, before you can disregard the argument, you should show what's wrong with it. Either you must show why a world where there are minds but no brains contradicts itself logically, or you must show why this particular problem, exceptional as it is, is above the fundamental laws of logic.

I will not try to prove or disprove anything logically. What you basically said is that you can imagine a world where there are minds but no brains. There is nothing wrong with it. You simply ignored the fact that such strange cases are not observable in our world. Therefore I cannot bridge the gap between your conceived world and our world.

I think you are confusing what the argument is trying to show. Of course I'm not claiming that it is actually possible for minds to exist without brains. However, I do hold that it is not logically contradictory, and therefore brain activity does not equal conscious experience, in accordance with the law of identity.

You seem to hold that this conceptual problem is in fact an illusion. Once we open up the brain and categorize the different activities, then that is the end of the road. The fibers firing in the brain is the conscious experience, the two just seem nonidentical logically speaking, which is because we are using our brain to investigate our brain. However, as long as this is just a hunch, I don't find it a good refutation of the logical argument.

[scourge99]

For example, we can say that rain equals water falling down from clouds in droplets after condensing and becoming sufficiently heavy. Try to imagine a world where it is raining but water does not fall down from the sky. As rain equals falling water droplets, there is no logically possible world where there is rain but no falling water, the contradiction is easy to see. However, a world where there are minds but no brain activity does not seem to contradict itself logically.

I hate to point out the obvious but we're not thinking with the rain (yes, "rain"). So our problem is a bit harder to solve because regardless of where you consider "thinking" to be implemented, you're using that to study the problem. That's why I think a similar argument (logical) would be irrelevant in our case.

Well, before you can disregard the argument, you should show what's wrong with it. Either you must show why a world where there are minds but no brains contradicts itself logically, or you must show why this particular problem, exceptional as it is, is above the fundamental laws of logic.

I will not try to prove or disprove anything logically. What you basically said is that you can imagine a world where there are minds but no brains. There is nothing wrong with it. You simply ignored the fact that such strange cases are not observable in our world. Therefore I cannot bridge the gap between your conceived world and our world.

I think you are confusing what the argument is trying to show. Of course I'm not claiming that it is actually possible for minds to exist without brains. However, I do hold that it is not logically contradictory, and therefore brain activity does not equal conscious experience, in accordance with the law of identity.

You seem to hold that this conceptual problem is in fact an illusion. Once we open up the brain and categorize the different activities, then that is the end of the road. The fibers firing in the brain is the conscious experience, the two just seem nonidentical logically speaking, which is because we are using our brain to investigate our brain. However, as long as this is just a hunch, I don't find it a good refutation of the logical argument.

The evidence indicates that consciousness is emergent property of neurons in the brain. Here are some other examples of emergence: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3410/03-ever-nf.html

[keithprosser3]

Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not know.

Actually, that is not true. "Emergence" is another one. Emergence is the word people use when they haven't got the foggiest idea how something actually works. It is the written form of hand-waving!':D'

[instantc]

The evidence indicates that consciousness is emergent property of neurons in the brain. Here are some other examples of emergence: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3410/03-ever-nf.html

Is there actually further evidence in addition to the experiments, which show that brain activity is a necessary condition for the mind?

[scourge99]

Religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not know.

Actually, that is not true. "Emergence" is another one. Emergence is the word people use when they haven't got the foggiest idea how something actually works. It is the written form of hand-waving!':D'

It certainly can be used to hand-wave if no supporting reason/evidence is given. But that doesn't mean that anytime emergence is claimed it IS hand-waving.

There are good reasons to believe that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain even if we don't know exactly how unconscious matter gives rise to consciousness. Some of those reasons are:
1) we know that the state of the mind is directly linked to the state of the brain.
2) we know new consciousnesses only arise from unconscious matter (reproduction).
3) Consciousness is constrained by the forces of physics we know now. There are no new significant forces in nature that can exist and operate at the level of the mind. That is, if there was some unknown force or property of nature that is responsible for consciousness then we would have observed it already.

Do you think other examples of emergence like hurricanes, economics, and bird formations is hand-waving?

[scourge99]

The evidence indicates that consciousness is emergent property of neurons in the brain. Here are some other examples of emergence: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3410/03-ever-nf.html

Is there actually further evidence in addition to the experiments, which show that brain activity is a necessary condition for the mind?

I don't understand what you are asking for. You'll need to clarify.

You seem to be asking if there is any evidence that supports the theory that the mind is the product of the brain but I'm not allowed to cite experiments. Is that what you are asking?

[instantc]

The evidence indicates that consciousness is emergent property of neurons in the brain. Here are some other examples of emergence: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3410/03-ever-nf.html

Is there actually further evidence in addition to the experiments, which show that brain activity is a necessary condition for the mind?

I don't understand what you are asking for. You'll need to clarify.

You seem to be asking if there is any evidence that supports the theory that the mind is the product of the brain but I'm not allowed to cite experiments. Is that what you are asking?

I know that by experiments we can affect the consciousness by altering brain activity. We also know that by damaging the brain we also damage the mind. These experiments show that the brain is a necessary physical condition for the mind. Is there any evidence to show that the brain is a sufficient condition for the mind?

[scourge99]

The evidence indicates that consciousness is emergent property of neurons in the brain. Here are some other examples of emergence: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3410/03-ever-nf.html

Is there actually further evidence in addition to the experiments, which show that brain activity is a necessary condition for the mind?

I don't understand what you are asking for. You'll need to clarify.

You seem to be asking if there is any evidence that supports the theory that the mind is the product of the brain but I'm not allowed to cite experiments. Is that what you are asking?

I know that by experiments we can affect the consciousness by altering brain activity. We also know that by damaging the brain we also damage the mind. These experiments show that the brain is a necessary physical condition for the mind. Is there any evidence to show that the brain is a sufficient condition for the mind?

I don't know what qualifies as "sufficient"? Do you mean "absolutely certain" ? Do you mean "convincing"? Or are you using" sufficient" in some technical sense?

To help me answer your question please answer the following analogy:
Experiments show that mass is a necessary physical condition for gravitation. Is there any evidence showing that mass is a sufficient condition for gravitation?

Lastly, i remember hearing this "sufficient" "necessary" buzz words before. I'm curious to know where/who this idea/concept is coming from.

[keithprosser3]

re emergence, I am a not a fan of emergence simply because it sounds like an explanation but often ends up being used instead of one. How does the brain produce consciousness? I don't know - it just sort of 'emerges'. Well, that explains everything!

But I don't want to get into a debate on emergence, which is a real phenomenon but can get over-used and misapplied, rather like Godel's theorems (but that is another matter!).