quote:

Originally posted by Drake:

quote:

Originally posted by ShadowDragon:
Because one doesn't need to invoke a new unobserved/unmeasurable matter/energy to explain it.

Perhaps one isn't. If I wanted to refer to the brain, I would. But when I refer to consciousness, the origin of thought, basic awareness or the psyche, I refer to the mind. Two parts of what could be the same thing. I'm not saying either way, really, if duality is right or wrong. I'm simply making a distinction between the two. We can see the brain. Can we see a thought? Hear it? Feel it itch along the back of our skull? No, but there are some who would call themselves "mind-readers". Can't say I've met one who can back up the claim accurately.

heh sorry drake I may have jumped the gun a little, I interpreted your post as coming out in favor of dualism. Interpretation can be a tricky process.

As for mind-readers so far none of them have ever been able to prove anything besides the fact that cold-reading can make you very rich.

quote:

Because one doesn't need to invoke a new unobserved/unmeasurable matter/energy to explain it. If the mind is the result of a physical system it will have little trouble influencing that system. All it has to is influence itself. Now we know the brain isn't just one lump of grey mass. It has numerous parts responsible for numerous tasks. The brain is a big and complex organ, if it is not the seat of the mind and just moves our limbs and stuff we could've made do with something the size of a baseball.

But I never said that the brain is merely a central processor that powers other body parts, did I? What I have a problem with is confining the mind to the brain only. As if the environment in which the individual lives does not affect the mind, as if everything the mind does can actually be explained scientifically. And if we remember that there is no universal definition of the mind so far, we'll see that there is not enough basis to the categorical statement that the brain is solely responsible for the existence of the mind.

Speaking of observation... When a petite girl ties a steel spoon into a pretzel, what physical laws are at work here? And she could repeat it, and as a result our household soon ran out of steel spoons. And I know how those spoons were manufactured, and I can swear no one tempered with them since I practically lived in the kitchen and the girl was not known for breaking into people's houses.

quote:

Occam's razor also comes into play. The problem of the non-physical interacting with the physical goes away if you can explain things using only the physical. Which modern neuroscience can do more and more. So far there is little to no scientific peer-reviewed evidence to support dualism.

Oh good, Occam's principle rules. So let's apply it… If creative talent, imagination, genius, subjectivity are all products of the brain, how do you measure them? Can you systematically and reliably reproduce any of that? Where do altruism, susceptibility to commit a crime, self- restraint fit in the picture? Are primitive urges and moods part of the mind too? If so, why a change in the diet affects the mood if all it does is change chemical balance in the whole body, and this change does not target the brain specifically?

quote:

Though I believe we've had this discussion before didn't we coffee?

That’s right, we did. But I thought that maybe science got new answers since the last convo we had, and that you would share them.

Like, for the ability to feel what’s going on with others about whom you have no sensory or derivative information? I am not talking about dim feelings that something went wrong with a loved one when in fact everything was fine. Blue Dragonfly posted a good example in another thread – a little boy who knew that the sick rabbit was no longer suffering when he was not with the rabbit at the time of its death and no one relayed that info to the boy in any traditional form.

Or the story my friend from Siberia that I posted before - she was recognized as being related to Native Americans by two individuals who knew nothing about her ancestry (she does have local Siberian tribes' blood in her) and hardly were aware of the fact that Native Americans originated in Siberia.

Seriously, you give me a scientific explanation of any of the above, and I will consider conversion. I don’t look for supernatural explanations where hard facts or common logic will suffice.

BTW, what do you think of views of John Carew Eccles and Charles Scott Sherrington who, despite being respected neurophysiologists, both rejected the idea of the mind being solely a product or equivalent of the brain? I would think that they knew more about the brain that we all here ever will.

First off let me jump right in and say that anecdotes really don't do anything for me. There is a reason anecdotes are never considered scientific proof of anything.
I could explain why but this youtube vid explains it better than I can
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=NPqerbz8KDc

quote:

But I never said that the brain is merely a central processor that powers other body parts, did I? What I have a problem with is confining the mind to the brain only. As if the environment in which the individual lives does not affect the mind, as if everything the mind does can actually be explained scientifically. And if we remember that there is no universal definition of the mind so far, we'll see that there is not enough basis to the categorical statement that the brain is solely responsible for the existence of the mind.

What exactly is your problem with the mind being a result of the brain? Can you be more precise?
Since neuroscience is not my immediate forté I shall shamelessly rip the words from a more educated individual on this matter

quote:

If the brain causes mind, then:

1- Brain states will correlate to mental and behavioral states.

2- Brain maturity will correlate with mental and emotional maturity.

3- Changing the brain’s function (with drugs, electrical or magnetic stimulation, or other methods) will change mental function.

4- Damaging the brain with damage the mind - producing specific deficits that correlate to the area of the brain damaged.

5- There will be no documentable mental phenomena in the absence of brain function.

6- When the brain dies, mental function ends.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=438

1 through 6 all ring true, these are hypotheses validated by experimentation and research.

quote:

Oh good, Occam's principle rules. So let's apply it… If creative talent, imagination, genius, subjectivity are all products of the brain, how do you measure them? Can you systematically and reliably reproduce any of that? Where do altruism, susceptibility to commit a crime, self- restraint fit in the picture? Are primitive urges and moods part of the mind too? If so, why a change in the diet affects the mood if all it does is change chemical balance in the whole body, and this change does not target the brain specifically?

First off subjectivity is not something that belongs in the same category as genius, creative talent and imagination. Second, like DNA, no brain is exactly the same, there are billions of connections in the brain and how a brain develops and is 'wired up' through genetics or through damage due to external factors. Your questions are not really related to dualism/materialism. It's a valid question to ask how these properties arise, It is far fetched to merely assume they come from some otherworldly plane of existence just because modern science says "we're not sure."
As far as Altruism and self-restraint and so on are concerned, again why assume they are these intangible mystical things that can not be explained by materialism?

The brain utilizes a lot of the resources you take in, it's an expensive piece of electrochemical machinery to carry around. It is in the brain where chemicals are produced that give you a certain urge or feeling to go do something. If you're hungry or what have you it's your brain that will tell you through a feeling "hey dummy, go eat something."
It's already known disruptions in brain chemistry can lead to moodswings or chronic depression.

I will admit I have a really hard time understanding the dualist position as all it comes down to arguments along the line of "Science can't explain [Emotion/feeling/property X] thus it's source is beyond the brain" and a barrage of anecdotes.

Neuroscience is in it's infancy, if scientists knew everything they'd be out of a job by now. There is a lot of work to be done. If in the future through scientific study it is revealed that the brain alone is not sufficient to explain consciousness then that's wonderful. So far however it looks like things like Religious experiences, Out of body experiences and the sensation of a presence can all be reproduced in a lab by sticking 'electrodes' to a test subject's head.
Who's to say the same can't be done for inducing a feeling of altruism? Or making an otherwise normal test subject want to go out and commit a crime?


As for the persons you mentioned I have not heard of them, I have heard that the number of of neurologists still supporting dualism are few. Every field of science has it's dissenters, that's not a bad thing. There's physicists questioning einstein, climatologists questioning global warming (There are no biologists questioning evolution though.)
But as far as the scientific consensus is concerned atm there is no need for dualism to explain anything.
You may think materialism to be insufficient to explain the mind, but you should be aware that dualism has it's own daunting problems. Dualism is not correct by default if a materialist answer fails to produce an immediate answer.

Between all this intelligent talk (which I have been deprived of for some time, until very recently), my brain feels like it asploded. Gimme some time and I'll put sommin' more intelligent-sounding-ish than "YOUR mother!" down.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadowDragon:
First off let me jump right in and say that anecdotes really don't do anything for me. There is a reason anecdotes are never considered scientific proof of anything.

And why did you take any of that as an attempt to prove anything? I was merely voicing my puzzlement. And FYI, Parapsychological Association that consists of scientists and scholars treats them seriously enough to devote time, money, and effort to research, so it's not exactly "never"

quote:

What exactly is your problem with the mind being a result of the brain? Can you be more precise?

Sure. It sounds controversial to me when someone states that brain is solely responsible for the mind and in the same breath admits that not all aspects of the mind can be explained from this point of view. You either have a definite answer or you don't; it can't be both.

quote:

Since neuroscience is not my immediate forté I shall shamelessly rip the words from a more educated individual on this matter

quote:

If the brain causes mind, then:

1- Brain states will correlate to mental and behavioral states.

2- Brain maturity will correlate with mental and emotional maturity.

3- Changing the brain’s function (with drugs, electrical or magnetic stimulation, or other methods) will change mental function.

4- Damaging the brain with damage the mind - producing specific deficits that correlate to the area of the brain damaged.

5- There will be no documentable mental phenomena in the absence of brain function.

6- When the brain dies, mental function ends.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=438

1 through 6 all ring true, these are hypotheses validated by experimentation and research.

Are you saying that correlate == define?

I don't dispute 1-5, they look like valid statements, but I fail to understand how they prove that the brain causes mind, that it's not some different sort of relationship. And when the brain dies, what actually ends - mental functions themselves or our ability to register and measure them? If it's mental functions, science could tell when exactly death occurs. So far, opinions differ.

quote:

First off subjectivity is not something that belongs in the same category as genius, creative talent and imagination.

I know; that was a random set of qualities attributed to the mind by different schools of thought.

quote:

Second, like DNA, no brain is exactly the same, there are billions of connections in the brain and how a brain develops and is 'wired up' through genetics or through damage due to external factors. Your questions are not really related to dualism/materialism. It's a valid question to ask how these properties arise, It is far fetched to merely assume they come from some otherworldly plane of existence just because modern science says "we're not sure." As far as Altruism and self-restraint and so on are concerned, again why assume they are these intangible mystical things that can not be explained by materialism?

1. I am not a proponent of dualism; it's no more satisfactory to me than materialism when it comes to the brain and mind issue.

2. Maybe altruism and self-restraint can be explained by materialism, why not? But I didn't come across any good explanation so far, hence the question. You seem to believe that I prefer mysticism to materialism; it's not the case. Being skeptical by nature, I would rather settle for a materialistic explanation, as long as it is convincing and sufficient. But in lieu of that, I don't see why not to explore other possibilities.

quote:

The brain utilizes a lot of the resources you take in, it's an expensive piece of electrochemical machinery to carry around. It is in the brain where chemicals are produced that give you a certain urge or feeling to go do something. If you're hungry or what have you it's your brain that will tell you through a feeling "hey dummy, go eat something." It's already known disruptions in brain chemistry can lead to moodswings or chronic depression.

I am aware of that,as well as of the fact that the above can be caused by general chemical imbalance in the body. AFAIK, causation can be turn each any way, and the brain doesn't necessarily win as the primary cause.

quote:

I will admit I have a really hard time understanding the dualist position as all it comes down to arguments along the line of "Science can't explain [Emotion/feeling/property X] thus it's source is beyond the brain" and a barrage of anecdotes.

It's a simplification. There are many branches of dualism, and not all of them see the brain and mind as being totally different or deny the brain an ability to correlate with manifestations of the mind.

quote:

Neuroscience is in it's infancy, if scientists knew everything they'd be out of a job by now. There is a lot of work to be done. If in the future through scientific study it is revealed that the brain alone is not sufficient to explain consciousness then that's wonderful. So far however it looks like things like Religious experiences, Out of body experiences and the sensation of a presence can all be reproduced in a lab by sticking 'electrodes' to a test subject's head. Who's to say the same can't be done for inducing a feeling of altruism? Or making an otherwise normal test subject want to go out and commit a crime?

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't science deal with matter? Yet the mind isn't composed of matter - you can't have any direct sensory information about it, all you have is immaterial mind's manifestations - thoughts, feelings, motor functions. Doesn't this call for some revision of traditional scientific methods? And isn't there a difference between genuine experience and it's laboratory imitation? Like, a simulator in a driving school, no matter how good, is still not the same as getting behind the wheel and hitting the real road.

quote:

As for the persons you mentioned I have not heard of them, I have heard that the number of of neurologists still supporting dualism are few. Every field of science has it's dissenters, that's not a bad thing. There's physicists questioning Einstein, climatologists questioning global warming (There are no biologists questioning evolution though.) But as far as the scientific consensus is concerned atm there is no need for dualism to explain anything. You may think materialism to be insufficient to explain the mind, but you should be aware that dualism has it's own daunting problems. Dualism is not correct by default if a materialist answer fails to produce an immediate answer.

See above. I am not fond of dualism, physicalism, behaviourism, mentalism or anything else that I can't remember now out of the top of my head. None of them have the full picture, and some are more wobbly than the others. The problem of the mind and brain is an uncomfortable situation any way you look at it if you ask me.

Oh, and there is at least one biologist that I know of who questions evolution - Bruce Evans.

quote:

Originally posted by Drake:
Gimme some time and I'll put sommin' more intelligent-sounding-ish than "YOUR mother!" down.

Up to this point I thought that this word for word equivalent of the Russian expression didn't exist in English - at least I never heard it. You learn something every day.

quote:

Originally posted by CoffeeOwl:
Up to this point I thought that this word for word equivalent of the Russian expression didn't exist in English - at least I never heard it. You learn something every day.

Yes, we English-speaking peoples come up with new and interesting ways to rudely insult one another on a daily basis. It's like a cultural form of Tourette's.

This is a very long thread. It's interesting, actually.

Christian Haydenson is such a douche. I loved the performance he gave in all of the Star Wars movies that he was in. He was such a whiney little bitch.

quote:

Originally posted by Nihilis:
Christian Haydenson is such a douche. I loved the performance he gave in all of the Star Wars movies that he was in. He was such a whiney little bitch.

Really? It's not bad enough to clutter up a good, interesting, intelligent thread with this drivel, but you have to get a guy's name wrong when you do it? Now, I wasn't the biggest fan of the Star Wars prequel either, but that having been said, this whole post was entirely unnecessary. God, create your own thread or just not post. For serious.

So I've recently been questioning the universe in my quiet introspective way that I do, and I think I've finally processed the "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together" "we are all made up of the same star stuff" philosophy. It's one thing to read it and go, "That makes sense" and another to really incorperate it into your everyday perception. This has made me come to the following conclusion:
If we're all made up of the same stuff, we are not seperate from the universe at all. We are a part of it and it is a part of us. To manipulate it in any way only results in changing ourselves somehow. We can not truly be alone, because we are linked on some level to those around us, and that is comforting to me. I used to think I needed a sense of individual self, something apart from the rest of the universe that I could shout out "THIS IS ME!" and people would understand. But now, I don't think I need that anymore, and I'm content with that. Borderline happy, even. Another meaningless attachment bites the proverbial dust. I'm okay with that.

quote:

Originally posted by Drake:
So I've recently been questioning the universe in my quiet introspective way that I do, and I think I've finally processed the "I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together" "we are all made up of the same star stuff" philosophy. It's one thing to read it and go, "That makes sense" and another to really incorporate it into your everyday perception. This has made me come to the following conclusion:
If we're all made up of the same stuff, we are not separate from the universe at all. We are a part of it and it is a part of us. To manipulate it in any way only results in changing ourselves somehow. We can not truly be alone, because we are linked on some level to those around us, and that is comforting to me. I used to think I needed a sense of individual self, something apart from the rest of the universe that I could shout out "THIS IS ME!" and people would understand. But now, I don't think I need that anymore, and I'm content with that. Borderline happy, even. Another meaningless attachment bites the proverbial dust. I'm okay with that.

We're all inextricably connected mate. It's kind of like the diameter of a circle: the universe is no greater than the sum of its parts, i.e. us.

quote:

Originally posted by Drake:
I used to think I needed a sense of individual self, something apart from the rest of the universe that I could shout out "THIS IS ME!" and people would understand. But now, I don't think I need that anymore, and I'm content with that. Borderline happy, even. Another meaningless attachment bites the proverbial dust. I'm okay with that.

Glad you had that experience.