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]

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")

Is that a true statement. .Can you show that it is a proper analogy. Please provide evidence of this claim. Claims from philosophers are not evidence, but merely opinions.

[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.

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

I think it is reasonable for a scientist to work with the reductionist presumption, mainly because there is no reason to posit unnecessarily complicated metaphysics before we find out more about the subject. Philosophers on the other hand are searching for the truth making use of our current knowledge, and since the claim that the mind can be reduced to brain activity is prima facie improbable, I think philosophers are more justified in defaulting against the reductionist view. At least that is so until the scientists come up with some kind of rational theory or proposed mechanism that would support reductionism.

[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")

Is that a true statement. .Can you show that it is a proper analogy. Please provide evidence of this claim. Claims from philosophers are not evidence, but merely opinions.

It is not a claim from philosophy it is a conviction based on facts. It has not been shown that consciousness is a physical phenomenon. Neuroscience is, at best, only looking at physical analogues. That they are such is evidenced by the fact that physicality very easily assumes images or metaphors of mental realities. For example the concept of x^2 is an abstraction but it is easy to draw a graph of the concept. x^2 is an abstraction that can easily be mapped in physical terms by a line on a piece of paper. Likewise the brain is a physical analogue of mind in the way a computer is.

[Goat]

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")

Is that a true statement. .Can you show that it is a proper analogy. Please provide evidence of this claim. Claims from philosophers are not evidence, but merely opinions.

It is not a claim from philosophy it is a conviction based on facts. It has not been shown that consciousness is a physical phenomenon. Neuroscience is, at best, only looking at physical analogues. That they are such is evidenced by the fact that physicality very easily assumes images or metaphors of mental realities. For example the concept of x^2 is an abstraction but it is easy to draw a graph of the concept. x^2 is an abstraction that can easily be mapped in physical terms by a line on a piece of paper. Likewise the brain is a physical analogue of mind in the way a computer is.

Is it based on facts?? Can you show a text book that says so?? How about a peer reviewed article? Can you support your claim? Let's see you support your claims.

[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.

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

Is that a true statement. .Can you show that it is a proper analogy. Please provide evidence of this claim. Claims from philosophers are not evidence, but merely opinions.

It is not a claim from philosophy it is a conviction based on facts. It has not been shown that consciousness is a physical phenomenon. Neuroscience is, at best, only looking at physical analogues. That they are such is evidenced by the fact that physicality very easily assumes images or metaphors of mental realities. For example the concept of x^2 is an abstraction but it is easy to draw a graph of the concept. x^2 is an abstraction that can easily be mapped in physical terms by a line on a piece of paper. Likewise the brain is a physical analogue of mind in the way a computer is.

Is it based on facts?? Can you show a text book that says so?? How about a peer reviewed article? Can you support your claim? Let's see you support your claims.

Done and done:

Book: The Mystery of the Mind : A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain. Penfield, Wilder. Princeton University Press, 1975. ISBN 0-691-02360-3

Peer reviewed article: Nagel, Thomas: “Brain Bisection and the Unity of Consciousness� in Jonathan Glover, ed. The Philosophy of Mind (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1976).

Quote from the former, written by a prestigious neuroscientist:

"For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier and logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements"

Any other demands, or perhaps you could provide an argument from your side now?

[Goat]

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")

Is that a true statement. .Can you show that it is a proper analogy. Please provide evidence of this claim. Claims from philosophers are not evidence, but merely opinions.

It is not a claim from philosophy it is a conviction based on facts. It has not been shown that consciousness is a physical phenomenon. Neuroscience is, at best, only looking at physical analogues. That they are such is evidenced by the fact that physicality very easily assumes images or metaphors of mental realities. For example the concept of x^2 is an abstraction but it is easy to draw a graph of the concept. x^2 is an abstraction that can easily be mapped in physical terms by a line on a piece of paper. Likewise the brain is a physical analogue of mind in the way a computer is.

Is it based on facts?? Can you show a text book that says so?? How about a peer reviewed article? Can you support your claim? Let's see you support your claims.

Done and done:

Book: The Mystery of the Mind : A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain. Penfield, Wilder. Princeton University Press, 1975. ISBN 0-691-02360-3

Peer reviewed article: Nagel, Thomas: “Brain Bisection and the Unity of Consciousness� in Jonathan Glover, ed. The Philosophy of Mind (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1976).

Quote from the former, written by a prestigious neuroscientist:

"For my own part, after years of striving to explain the mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier and logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does consist of two fundamental elements"

Any other demands, or perhaps you could provide an argument from your side now?

Well.. one big problem with you quote. You claim "Thomas Nagel" is a neurosciencist . No, he is not. He is a philosopher. So. you are misrepresenting him. As such, I do not consider that a peer reviewed article in the proper discipline.

And that other book was from a surgeon... and if you notice, ..that is a very selective quote. I doesn't say that it IS.. in fact that case, but 'It seems to me'.. which makes it quite the acknowledged logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorence'.

It also was a popular book that was published 38 years ago, long before we had the ability to map the brain, and examine the actions of the brain as things happen.

[instantc]

Well.. one big problem with you quote. You claim "Thomas Nagel" is a neurosciencist . No, he is not. He is a philosopher. So. you are misrepresenting him. As such, I do not consider that a peer reviewed article in the proper discipline.

But, if you look at my post again, I was not quoting Thomas Nagel but Wilder Penfield, who in fact was a prestigious neurosurgeon. Then you say that you don't consider the article in the proper discipline, why would you say that? In my view, and in many others, philosophy is the only discipline which can approach this problem. Neuroscience at its present stage cannot even attempt to tackle it.

And that other book was from a surgeon... and if you notice, ..that is a very selective quote. I doesn't say that it IS.. in fact that case, but 'It seems to me'.. which makes it quite the acknowledged logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorence'.

Well, I was defending a bold statement, which I didn't make myself. I wouldn't say that we have are dealing with even close certainty here.

However, you are wrong about the logical fallacy. Penfield is not making an argument from ignorance, but rather he is simply defaulting to dualism, because that's where our current knowledge points. Granted that we don't know anything for certainty, but some form of dualism seems in any case more probable than the narrow reductionist presumption.

Materialist philosophers understand the problems in this context, and they are forced make rather counterintuitive arguments in order to defend their views, such as Alex Rosenberg makes in his book The Atheist's Guide to Reality. He admits, for example, that classical materialism cannot explain intentional states of the mind, and thus in his hypothesis minds don't actually have intentional states at all, they are simply illusions.

It also was a popular book that was published 38 years ago, long before we had the ability to map the brain, and examine the actions of the brain as things happen.

Thomas Nagel on the other hand teaches at the present moment at New York University. In all fairness, in the past 50 years practically no progress has been made regarding the mind/body problem. We have got to know more about what the brain does, but nothing about how it does what it does.

[Goat]

Well.. one big problem with you quote. You claim "Thomas Nagel" is a neurosciencist . No, he is not. He is a philosopher. So. you are misrepresenting him. As such, I do not consider that a peer reviewed article in the proper discipline.

But, if you look at my post again, I was not quoting Thomas Nagel but Wilder Penfield, who in fact was a prestigious neurosurgeon. Then you say that you don't consider the article in the proper discipline, why would you say that? In my view, and in many others, philosophy is the only discipline which can approach this problem. Neuroscience at its present stage cannot even attempt to tackle it.

And that other book was from a surgeon... and if you notice, ..that is a very selective quote. I doesn't say that it IS.. in fact that case, but 'It seems to me'.. which makes it quite the acknowledged logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorence'.

Well, I was defending a bold statement, which I didn't make myself. I wouldn't say that we have are dealing with even close certainty here.

However, you are wrong about the logical fallacy. Penfield is not making an argument from ignorance, but rather he is simply defaulting to dualism, because that's where our current knowledge points. Granted that we don't know anything for certainty, but some form of dualism seems in any case more probable than the narrow reductionist presumption.

Materialist philosophers understand the problems in this context, and they are forced make rather counterintuitive arguments in order to defend their views, such as Alex Rosenberg makes in his book The Atheist's Guide to Reality. He admits, for example, that classical materialism cannot explain intentional states of the mind, and thus in his hypothesis minds don't actually have intentional states at all, they are simply illusions.

It also was a popular book that was published 38 years ago, long before we had the ability to map the brain, and examine the actions of the brain as things happen.

Thomas Nagel on the other hand teaches at the present moment at New York University. In all fairness, in the past 50 years practically no progress has been made regarding the mind/body problem. We have got to know more about what the brain does, but nothing about how it does what it does.

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..His book is from 1975,.. and that quote is the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorence'. Our technology and understanding has come a long way in the last 38 years you know.

[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")

Is that a true statement. .Can you show that it is a proper analogy. Please provide evidence of this claim. Claims from philosophers are not evidence, but merely opinions.

It is not a claim from philosophy it is a conviction based on facts. It has not been shown that consciousness is a physical phenomenon. Neuroscience is, at best, only looking at physical analogues. That they are such is evidenced by the fact that physicality very easily assumes images or metaphors of mental realities. For example the concept of x^2 is an abstraction but it is easy to draw a graph of the concept. x^2 is an abstraction that can easily be mapped in physical terms by a line on a piece of paper. Likewise the brain is a physical analogue of mind in the way a computer is.

Is it based on facts?? Can you show a text book that says so?? How about a peer reviewed article? Can you support your claim? Let's see you support your claims.

When I say 'facts' I am talking about facts in general - the world as it is presented to us. When I assess the facts of my experience I conclude that the brain is a physical analogue of something else.

[instantc]

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?