I am enjoying the interchange begun in my previous post, but the conversation is going far afield of the original topic and the thread is getting long, so I am offering everyone the opportunity to continue the discussion here.
Cyberkitten said:
I am gradually coming to the conclusion that the 'mind' as a separate entity doesn't actually exist - hence there is no "mind-brain" connection.
I didn't mean to imply that the mind has any sort of existence apart from the brain. But, the mind is not just the brain. At the very least, it is the activity that occurs in the brain.
The brain produces the 'mind' as part of the way it functions. Yes, this is more like what I mean. The mind is a product, and like any product it can be distinguished from that which produces it. When the computer is off, the software can't run.
I can think of three reasons to think that the mind is not synonymous with the brain:
First, there is something about the nature of experience which leads me to the conclusion that the mind is distinguishable from the brain.
The best way for me to explain is to use an illustration.
Think of an elephant. Imagine the big ears, the greyish, leathery skin, the prehensile trunk, etc. - imagine the most detailed elephant you can. Now, you are having what might be called an elephant-like experience in your mind.
Presumably, there is some activity occuring in your brain that corresponds to the elephant-like experience. But the activity in your brain is not experienced by you. Your experience is something HUGE, smelly, rough, hairy in some places, capable of making a trumpet-like sound. There is nothing in your physical brain that has those qualities. There's just tissue, swimming in hormones and electrolytic fluids, sparkling with electrical activity.
Secondly, I can consider in my mind things that cannot exist physically - the elements of Euclidean geometry, for instance. Points, lines, and planes cannot exist in physical space, hence they cannot exist in the brain - but I can contemplate them in my mind.
Thirdly, a brain can exist without a mind, such as when it is unconscious or dead. If the mind were just the brain alone, that wouldn't be possible.
The evidence that brain activity corresponds to our experience is so strong as to be nearly absolutely certain. Eventually, we will learn to stimulate or program the brain directly, to produce an experience in the mind. But brain activity, on the one hand, and the experience itself, on the other hand, are qualitatively different.
I think a few more words about the soul are in order, considering what was said in the last post. The term "soul", in my opinon, is a loose, general way of talking about things that we feel are essential to who we are. Perhaps it is true that there is no single, unchangeable thing that defines a person - but it doesn't follow that we have no essential qualities or characteristics.
There are activities, personality traits, values, interests, plans, and relationships I have, that make me unique and that help to define me. Any of those elements may change with experiences I have, or decisions I make. Over time, if enough of those changes occur, then I may look back at my history and say to myself, "I'm really not the same person I was." And that's okay - I don't believe any contradiction is involved - because the sense of "same" we are talking about involves NOT a mere physical continuity, but that set of characteristics that we feel makes us who we are. So, I think that even our souls are subject to change.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
snaars said: I didn't mean to imply that the mind has any sort of existence apart from the brain. But, the mind is not just the brain. At the very least, it is the activity that occurs in the brain.
I think that what we call the mind is a by-product of the brains electrical activity. As you say later on "a brain can exist without a mind" but can a mind exist without a brain? That's what I was getting at when I said that the mind is not a separate 'thing'. It does not (and IMO) cannot exist separate from a brain - be it organic or otherwise.
I think that we in the West have grown up with the idea of an *I* and with the idea of a separate mind because of Decartes. I think that he pushed us down the wrong path on that one.
I don't quite understand your example of imagining an elelphant in your mind. I can imagine a galaxy or an atom in full glorious colour and 5.1 surround sound... We, as humans, can imagine anything that can be imagined. Where does that fact lead us?
... can a mind exist without a brain?
I don't believe so. All the evidence, we agree, points to minds being dependant on physical brains.
Descartes put forth what is now known as (if I remember correctly) sustance dualism - the idea that the mind and the body are made up of two separate kinds of substance - and a problem is that it's not clear how the two types of substance are supposed to be able to interact.
My personal view is also dualistic in a sense, but it's not a substance dualism. I tend to think that the mind is dependant on physical substance, but it has properties that are not reducible to substance. Instead, mental properties supervene over physical ones.
The elephant example is my own (admittedly inexpert and probably fatally flawed) way of demonstrating that the mind has properties lacked by the physical brain.
Maybe I'm way off and what I'm thinking doesn't really make sense. But bear with me and I'll try to elaborate.
Sitting in front of your computer screen right now, you are receiving sensory inputs, which are translated into images, sounds, smells, etc. in your mind.
These translations are experienced by you invountarily and they seem to refer to actual things that exist in the world. Unless you are a radical sceptic you will take all this for granted.
Many things you imagine are also involuntary. When you read the word "elephant" you can't prevent yourself from thinking elephant-like thoughts. Unlike your sensory experience of the world though, your thoughts of an elephant don't refer to any particular physical object. To what, then, do they refer?
Your imaginings differ from your sensory experience only in degree. If you clear your mind, concentrate, and think of, say, angel food cake, can't you almost smell it and taste it? Interestingly, brain imaging studies have shown that you are using the same areas of the brain as you would use if you were actually eating angel food cake.
My question - the one that's meant to demonstrate that mental properties are not reducible to physical ones - is this: Sights, sounds, smells, - any physical sensations - how are we to understand that they are "located" in the brain?
Our experience of something is indirect, and somewhat distinct from the actual thing, itself. In fact (again, maybe it's just me) - I can hardly comprehend what it means to say that our experiences are "located" anywhere.
When I eat angel food cake or think of an elephant, I understand that the cake is in the world, and the elephant is in my imagination, and the experience of both are in my mind. But I don't feel anything in my "brain". I might as well say that my experience takes place in a cardboard box. It's meaningless to me.
If someone were to open up my head and look at my brain, they wouldn't see the experience of anything there - they would just see a (hopefully) healthy and Superbly High-functioning Intelligent Thought-generating machine. (Look at the acronym, it's not bull).
Likewise, geometric shapes, numbers and such - they don't exist in physical space any more than sensations do - yet they are considered in the mind.
snaars said: All the evidence, we agree, points to minds being dependant on physical brains.
Indeed. But are you saying that the brain in effect 'hosts' the mind? I'm saying that the mind is... I'm actually struggling for an analogy here... the mind is like the sound you get when wind passes through trees. The trees are the physical brain, the wind is the electrical impulses produced by the brain activity... the mind is.. in effect - noise.
snaars asked: Sights, sounds, smells, - any physical sensations - how are we to understand that they are "located" in the brain?
Certainly the *memories* of these things are located in the brain somewhere (and maybe many-wheres). New sensations tend to be sharper maybe because the 'recording' facility of the brain wants to make a good copy for later comparison/use. Stimulation of the brain can also produce vivid memories, smells, sounds etc..
snaars said: If someone were to open up my head and look at my brain, they wouldn't see the experience of anything there.
Of course, the brain is just a squidgy mess in your skull. You can't see the electrical impulses whizzing around, you can't see memories or much else for that matter. I'm not exactly clear what you're trying to show by pointing this out.
A computer chip is basically a piece of impure silicon... and yet it can do mathematical calculations, draw pictures - of elephants or anything else - remember and play back music etc..etc.. and yet.. its just a bit of silicon. Given time that chip will probably be thinking too. I'm afraid that examining the hardware doesn't get us very far.
I believe we are in agreement, for the most part. I'm not sure what you are objecting to.
are you saying that the brain in effect 'hosts' the mind?
That is most certainly one of the things I am saying, yes.
If my brain could be copied molecule-for-molecule, and if there were a process by which my consciousness could be transferred to the copy, then I think the copy would be me. The brain would be a completely different brain, but the mind would be the same mind.
Let me try a different tack.
At this moment, with the hardware we have available to us (bodies and brains, which are part of our bodies) - your experiences are unique to you. No one else can experience your experiences.
In principle, I can access your brain - by means of some sort of medical scan, or whatever. I could, in principle, read your thoughts. With enough technical sophistication, I could experience your experiences. I would not, however, be experiencing your brain.
Experience takes place in the mind, not the brain.
snaars said: I believe we are in agreement, for the most part. I'm not sure what you are objecting to.
I think we're debating the details and the language being used.
snaars said: Experience takes place in the mind, not the brain.
I think that you're making too much of the separation. We know what the brain is - we can put it in a jar and look at it. But what are you proposing that the mind actually *is*. Some of your statements seem to be pointing towards it being definitely a separate 'thing' from the brain, which I disagree with.
• Snaars:
First, to respond to your comment on the previous post:
Q, you are setting up a false dichotomy. You assume that if someone denies the existence of a soul, then they also deny the existence of a self.
That isn't what I meant to say. I'm not thinking of people who deny that there's a soul. I'm thinking of people who deny that there is a self. Even as they deny it, they have to fight their own impulses … because we all feel like there is such a thing as "my self".
And "feel" is approximately the right word. We can't demonstrate the existence of a self to anyone else. And yet it's natural for each one of us to think in terms of such a self.
That thing — that self that we automatically assume to exist — I am calling it the soul. I would further identify it with the mind. These three words, mind / self / soul — they all point to the same par of a human being, in my view.
It is this entity (for lack of a better word) that gives us a sense of continuity through all the changes of life. And, in my view, it survives even when the body dies and the brain ceases to function.
I can't prove any of this in objective terms. It is thus a matter of "faith".
But, in my view, the argument reveals the limitations of philosophy. The truth is, it is a universal human experience to believe that "I" have a "self". The fact that philosophy can't demonstrate it objectively doesn't negate the witness of universal human experience. It only shows the limitations of philosophy as a tool for figuring out reality.
Science takes us some distance down the path of figuring out reality. Reason (philosophy) may take us a little further down the path. But at some point, science and reason simply fail us.
The sceptical person stops right there, when science and reason can take us no further. The believer says, That's a good starting point; I'll let my faith take me the rest of the way. And anything that I can point to as being a universal human experience — it doesn't take such a huge leap of faith to believe in it.
Cyberkitten:
I'm not saying that the mind is physically separate from the brain - i'm saying that the mind exhibits properties that the brain doesn't. The mind deals in concepts. Concepts seem - to me, anyway - to be non-physical.
A lot hinges on the supervenience relation. You can read more about it here, if you're interested.
As I said before, I could be wrong. I don't mind if you disagree. It's a natural reaction, because the things I am saying are not at all obviously - in fact, they are counter-intuitive.
I was hoping to be able to adequately convey the distinction, though. If what I have written already hasn't convinced you, then perhaps there's no distinction to be made, or else it's such a fine distinction that it's no use quibbling over.
This is highly theoretical philosophy, and like anything highly theoretical, it may seem silly or useless at first. To a subatomic particle physicist, the difference between a lepton and a quark is highly significant. the rest of us might be mildly interested, but we probably don't care a whole lot.
Grrrrrrr!!!!
Blogger keeps eating my comments!!!!
Q, I appreciate the comment and I will respond later ... when I have time to re-write it.
snaars said: As I said before, I could be wrong. I don't mind if you disagree. It's a natural reaction, because the things I am saying are not at all obviously - in fact, they are counter-intuitive.
You know... I'm not exactly sure that we *are* disagreeing on the fundamentals [grin]. I think I'm having problems getting my ideas across though - damn this language! [chuckle]. I think we both agree that the mind does not exist as a separate entity/thing. I go one (or several) steps further and put forward the idea that the *self* is quite possibly an illusion brought on as the result of persistent memory and that the mind is only a by-product of mental activity resulting from the complexity of the large human brain. As to the soul... Well, I'm more that fairly convinced that its just wishful thinking.
I'll check out the link tomorrow probably. It's getting to my bedtime.
Q said: The truth is, it is a universal human experience to believe that "I" have a "self".
Well... there *is* the Buddhist belief. Don't they think that the self is an illusion?
Also, since when does a majority vote have any bearing on the truth/reality. It is indeed possible that the self/mind/soul are real things - but the reality of the situation shouldn't be dependent on what the majority think is the case. Just because something may be 'universally' understood to be the case - doesn't make it so.
Q,
I appreciate the even-handedness and the gentleness of your approach. We have offended each other before when discussing philosophical and theological matters. I was a little concerned that I might have done so again in the previous thread, and I will take care not to do so now.
You won't get an argument from me on the synonymy of the words mind/self/soul. These terms are perfectly interchangable in most contexts.
Looking up at a starry sky, listening to a symphony - I might say these are soul-stirring experiences. But I would use the word out of a sense of convention. I don't believe that the soul persists after death.
The fact that philosophy can't demonstrate it [that "I" have a "self"] objectively doesn't negate the witness of universal human experience ... at some point, science and reason simply fail us. The sceptical person stops right there, when science and reason can take us no further.
I don't deny the existence of the self. It's news to me that it can't be demonstrated philosophically.
If you are under the impression that all philosophers are extreme sceptics, then your aversion to philosophy becomes more understandable.
A certain amount of scepticism is healthy and rational. It prevents us from being gullible. It helps us ask useful questions. I have little use for extreme or radical scepticism though - radical scepticism being a systematic doubting of everything, like what Descartes does early on in his Meditations.
Anything - literally anything - can be doubted. Anyone who has taken Philosophy 101 and heard of the Brain in the Vat scenario can easily show that absolute certainty is impossible. But absolute certainty is not a prerequisite for knowledge.
Personal identity presents certain philosophical conundrums: What is the self, and how does it exist? These are interesting puzzles, and I believe there are real answers that we can discover.
On the way, we have to be willing to go where reason leads. We will probably have to refine and perhaps drastically revise our common-sense notions of what the self really is.
Thanks, Snaars. You've travelled as far down that path with me as I could reasonably expect you to.
Can the existence of a self be demonstrated philosophically? I'd like to know how.
My objection to philosophy is partly that it tends to scepticism — yes. In addition, I think philosophy is misguided to place so much confidence in what our minds can tell us about reality.
Those two concerns are linked. I think philosophy tends to scepticism because it relies on the mind to prove all things; and the mind is simply incapable of doing any such thing.
Once we reach the limits of what the mind can show us, there's no reason to assume there's nothing more beyond that point. We can exercise faith, or at least make room for agnosticism, about whatever else may be true.
I'm not sure whether you would agree with me on that point.
Q said: In addition, I think philosophy is misguided to place so much confidence in what our minds can tell us about reality.
Why? On what do you base that assertion?
Q said: I think philosophy tends to scepticism because it relies on the mind to prove all things; and the mind is simply incapable of doing any such thing.
Again: Why? On what do you base that assertion?
Q said: Once we reach the limits of what the mind can show us, there's no reason to assume there's nothing more beyond that point.
First you presume that there *are* limits to what the mind can show us - then you add the presumption that there *is* something beyond what the mind can grasp. Why should either statement be considered to be true? Personally I consider neither presumption to be the case.
You know you guys a missing the best metaphor for the mind body dilemma, and to think you guys are using it now to discuss this problem. It is the internet.
I thought cyberkitten would bring it up, because she/he (i'm not exactly sure if you are a she or a he so please don't take my ignorance as offensive) brought up the computer chip example.
let us begin by defining how an object can be seperate from another object. This is best understood as A is B only if there are no properties that B has that A does not have. Now. (by this definition all i have to do is prove that A has one property that B does not have to say that A and B are not the same ideas/objects)
So now we need to objects/ideas, and we have two ideas/objects. Let us use cyberspace and silicon chips. There are a lot of properties that cyberspace has that silicon chips do not, and vice versa.
- cyberspace is infinite, yet takes up no physical space in the world.
- silicon chips have a definite physical space and are most definitly finite.
Does it matter that cyberspace cannot exist without silicon chips (which is actually not true, you can have other semi-conductor chips that perform the same function, but i digress)? I don't think that is relevant beyond demonstrating a property one object/idea has in difference with the other object/idea. I.E. The dependancy of one on the other for existence.
Language seriously is screwing this conversation up, and for that i give a nod to Nietzsche. There is so much vagueness creeping in between the definitions of "seperate" and "things" that ends up corrupting your arguments.
Descartes failed because he was attempting to create two ideas/objects that were so drastically different, that there was no possible interaction between them. Of course he also commited the linguistic fallacy, assuming that because in language nouns have verbs that in reality objects must exist for actions to take place.
"Cogito ergo sum" Damn Berkeley (the professor not the philosopher, ah hell damn them both)
A little time-out, and possible an apology or two, seems to be in order at this point.
Wow... I always feel a little trepidation when the conversation shows the potential of going in any of a number of potentially inflammatory directions. I guess I'm a little bit of a control freak - I want to know where I'm going ahead of time. But then, where would be the fun in that?
Thanks to all three of you - Q, Cyberkitten, and Arglor - for a good beginning to a potentially great exploration of philosophical issues. Now, I've got teeny little bones to pick with two of you.
Arglor said: (i'm not exactly sure if you are a she or a he so please don't take my ignorance as offensive)
Arglor, we've been friends for several years now. You know your friendship is valuable to me. Do I have to tell you that your comment was ... tacky? Please stop and think about the possible impact of what you are saying to someone.
People have been known to be harassed over gender issues. I don't know if gender is an issue to anyone reading, and I don't want to know - it's not relevant to the topic of discussion. Everyone has a right to privacy, so let's not delve for information.
That being said, I know you and I know you didn't mean to pry.
I'm glad for the rest of your comment, which had some excellent substance to it and which I intend to come back to.
Cyberkitten:
your comments are well-phrased and insightful. I'm flattered whenever people take the time to join in discussion here at my oh-so-humble abode, so I hope you continue to visit.
I do ask that you make an effort to be diplomatic. If you disagree, rather than quoting someone and asking "Why? On what do you base that assertion," - which is likely to put anyone on the defensive - you could say something along the lines of, "I wonder if you could elaborate on such-and-such, given x, which would seem to be a problem for your position."
Alternatively, if you honestly don't care to hear the other person's arguments, you could just disagree nicely and leave the matter unargued. I won't think less of you. For my part, I prefer exploration of the issues over creating win/lose scenarios.
I apologize for making this request publicly, Cyberkitten. I would have contacted you privately but there's no e-mail address in your profile.
Everyone:
I want to maintain an atmosphere that encourages civil discourse. I don't want anyone to feel unwelcome or attacked. Please work with me. I understand that mistakes happen - I've made a few myself. Let's just make every effort to avoid needless and fruitless conflicts.
Q:
You are forthright as always and your questions and observations are fair as well as challenging. I will have to consider carefully if I am to give them the attention they and you deserve.
In the meantime, my short answer is that yes, there are limits to reason - and I'm certain that we will disagree on the demarcation.
I know the conversation is going well when I feel a desire to go back to my old class notes. Good work, everyone!
uhm. let me begin by saying cyberkitten's gender is irrelevant to the issue at hand, and the only reason i brought it up was because i wanted to make sure cyberkitten knew i was ignorant to the issue and avoiding labeling it one way or another.
I think it is more appropriate to appologize ahead of time (which is exactly how my statement was phrased) then to just blunder through the statements saying he/she etc throughout.
I certainly could go the predominantly route and assume all individuals are the internet are male and use the universal "he" in every situation but i believe that is sexist and degrading to all individuals involved.
In the end, if you review my comment you will notice it wasn't a request for clarification on the issue. I could give a hoot either way. The statement was simply constructed to protect myself from offending him/her, due to my ignorance on the non-issue. (And yet in the process i offended... you... with tackiness. Haha. I'm tacky. I need to look that word up, because i have a feeling it doesn't mean i have an additional use in hanging things on the wall ;)
I'm sorry (directed at both snaars & Q) that my questions came over as undiplomatic. I certainly didn't intend them to be so. I do tend to ask direct questions though - which can be (and looks like they have been) misconstrued. I'll try and use more diplomatic language in future - it's just that I'm a slow typist and have been taught to use less words than more in any argument.
How's this:
Q said: I think philosophy is misguided to place so much confidence in what our minds can tell us about reality.
and also said: I think philosophy tends to scepticism because it relies on the mind to prove all things; and the mind is simply incapable of doing any such thing.
I'd be interested as to how you arrived at that position. Could you explain further?
Science has only been around for about 300 years or so and has only really come into its stride comparatively recently. There are many things we are unsure about, probably lots of things we are unaware of but I don't really see much of an indication that anything need be beyond our understanding.
Oh, and as to my gender....
I did a post on the confusion on my Blog. My fault for picking a fairly ambiguous name.... No offence taken from anything posted here I assure you.
Thanks, Arglor and Cyberkitten, for your gracious responses. Just a word of clarification: I was not offended and I have no indication whatsoever that anyone else has been offended.
I'm overly sensitive, perhaps. It's just that I would rather irritate a person or two and seem to be a jerk, instead of taking the risk of letting someone feel attacked - whether it is for some element of their character or for their sincerely held beliefs.
We lack the benefits of face-to-face communication. We should consider possible alternate interpretations of what we are writing.
Some amount of misommunication is always going to happen, but I feel an obligation to take reasonable precautions against it.
Sorry for the digression.
Post a Comment