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".

[scourge99]

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

Has shown, or is showing? It has shown promise since 50's! There was a lot of interest a few decades ago, but there is not much going on now. There is no prospect of a HAL 9000 in the offing, and its already 12 years late! (2001 was written in 1968 when we were still naive and believed in the computational model uncritically - all we've learned since is that it's more difficult that it looked).

In terms of science and technology in general, I think the optimism of the 60-80s has been replaced by a general mood of cynicism today - what happened to mankind's ambition? Where are the moon bases and routine journeys to Mars we all believed in 30 years ago?. We stopped dreaming somewhere along the line.
Once the future looked like Star Trek - now it looks like Mad Max. Another topic, perhaps.

Technology and scientific advancement and its effects on our lives is rarely predicted accurately. E.G., the invention of computing machines was completely unforeseen. I presume the future was envisioned as steampunk-esque

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... h-concepts
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packa ... 50,00.html

[mgb]

And this leads me to another line of evidence that i had forgotten. That mental capabilities show increasing capability with increased brain complexity. Which is why we view ants as more intelligent that bacteria. sardines more intelligent that ants. dogs more intelligent than sardines. etc. Until you get to animals such as ourselves which seem to be the pinnacle of intelligence as compared to other organisms.

This only means the brain is more able to channel more of the true mind into the world. The true collective mind of the ant may be very intelligent.

[mgb]

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

Computers have not yet shown 1 iq point of intelligence. Nor have steam engines. They are machines, pieces of matter. Intelligence is concerned with consciousness.

[keithprosser3]

Intelligence is concerned with consciousness.

I would say that if you want to discuss this stuff in any depth it is quite important to keep the two concepts as separate as possible.

Intelligence is concerned with the acquistion of facts (especially new facts) and the ability to apply them.
Consciousness is concerned with 'awareness'.

A chess program that improves its strategy by playing games is 'intelligent' (by that definition), but not in the least 'conscious' - it has no actual awareness of the fact it is playing chess. or of anything else for that matter. Artificial intelligence is almost routine these days. Artificial consciousness is a different matter altogether.

[mgb]

Intelligence is concerned with consciousness.

I would say that if you want to discuss this stuff in any depth it is quite important to keep the two concepts as separate as possible.

Intelligence is concerned with the acquistion of facts (especially new facts) and the ability to apply them.
Consciousness is concerned with 'awareness'.

A chess program that improves its strategy by playing games is 'intelligent' (by that definition), but not in the least 'conscious' - it has no actual awareness of the fact it is playing chess. or of anything else for that matter. Artificial intelligence is almost routine these days. Artificial consciousness is a different matter altogether.

Intelligence is not just about facts it is about the correlation of facts and the ability to discern meaning. For this consciousness is required.

[keithprosser3]

I wish I could decree what words mean!

I got my definitions from a most reliable of sources (ok, the internet) by typing
'define intelligence' and 'define consciousness' into Google and got

Intelligence: The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Consciousness: The state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

By those definitions, I think a chess playing program is intelligent but not conscious. I say that because as a computer programmer I know how to write a program that is intelligent in the sense a computer playing program is intelligent, but I don't know how to write a computer program that is conscious.

If I could I'd be even richer than I am now (not that that is saying much!). Hence intelligence does not depend on consciousness. Perhaps by a different definition of intelligence consciousness is needed - but what definition is that, and who else uses it?

[mgb]

I wish I could decree what words mean!

I got my definitions from a most reliable of sources (ok, the internet) by typing
'define intelligence' and 'define consciousness' into Google and got

Intelligence: The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

But knowledge is not just a collection of facts, it is the ability to understand facts. Computers cannot do this.

Computers don't really play chess in the way the human being does. The computer just goes through the permutations of moves and evaluates them according to a set of criteria that are worked out by human intelligence. There is no intelligence in a computer, no more than there is in a steam engine.

In the mid twentieth century a mathematician (I think it was Lucas) used bicycle gears to make a machine to factor composite numbers. On that basis we cannot argue that bicycle gears are intelligent nor is any arrangement of them.

[Ooberman]

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

Absolutely, 100% without a doubt. There is no credible scientist that still clings to the ancient ways of thinking there is a Brain/Mind duality, or 'vapors' or daemons, or any of the other stuff people used to believe.

The ONLY people who still believe in Dualism are religiously motivated con artists.

[instantc]

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

Absolutely, 100% without a doubt. There is no credible scientist that still clings to the ancient ways of thinking there is a Brain/Mind duality, or 'vapors' or daemons, or any of the other stuff people used to believe.

The ONLY people who still believe in Dualism are religiously motivated con artists.

This is a bold statement, I would invite you to look at the work of Thomas Nagel, an atheist philosopher and prominent proponent of dualism. One example is enough to prove you wrong, but in my experience the majority of professional philosophers believe that the reductionist view is both absurd and unjustified, and thus they more often default to some form of dualism. Furthermore, the conceptual argument against the reductionist view I have presented in this thread still stands, perhaps you would like to offer us your refutation?

[mgb]

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

Absolutely, 100% without a doubt. There is no credible scientist that still clings to the ancient ways of thinking there is a Brain/Mind duality, or 'vapors' or daemons, or any of the other stuff people used to believe.

The ONLY people who still believe in Dualism are religiously motivated con artists.

The neuroscientists are confusing the computer with its operator. They are not the same thing. Please try to use less provocative statements ("con artists")