Mind & Brain

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice video about whether the mind is just an emergent property of brain activities or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFGKhvWQ4M

Cheers.

Sriram

[Stranger]

Here is a nice video about whether the mind is just an emergent property of brain activities or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFGKhvWQ4M

Is this even serious? I guess it's Christian apologetics channel, so it down to the standard we'd expect.

The first part is a long argument from ignorance. The second bit about brain plasticity and changes as "as result" of subjective experience, the dissociative identity disorder examples etc. was rather comical as it's is exactly what we'd expect if the brain directly corresponds to the mind. Basically it was an exercise in begging the question by assuming the mind was a separate thing, then saying "wow, look, it can affect the brain, so it must be separate!".

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice video about whether the mind is just an emergent property of brain activities or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFGKhvWQ4M

Cheers.

Sriram

It might be a nice video, but it's clearly been created with an agenda.

[Gordon]

As far as I can see it is this lot:

https://inspiringphilosophy.org/about-us/

One look at the mission statement confirms that this is just another proselytising Christian site, and a look at some of their sections reveals the usual begging the question assumptions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I can see it is this lot:

https://inspiringphilosophy.org/about-us/

One look at the mission statement confirms that this is just another proselytising Christian site, and a look at some of their sections reveals the usual begging the question assumptions.

Can you give examples of them begging the question or did you just hear that from the excellent, young, virile, muscular, and potent fallacy spotters you have attracted to this message board?

[Enki]

Hi everyone,

Here is a nice video about whether the mind is just an emergent property of brain activities or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOFGKhvWQ4M

Cheers.

Sriram

I looked at your video twice.

As has already been said(by NTTS) it seems to be in two parts

The first part empasises Penfield's interesting and groundbreaking experiments of stimulating points on the cerebral cortex with electrodes, and producing results which  showed that such things as sensations, actions and even memory could be invoked. However he came to the conclusion that the more intellectual areas of the brain could not be reached by this limited point stimulation method, which is not surprising considering that the brain's billions of cells work and interact together to produce complex thoughts including beliefs, decisions etc. What he fails to suggest is that different approaches using drugs such as scopolamine and techniques such as hypnotism can effect these higher mental faculties. Also, of course, changes within damaged brains, for instance, of people suffering from dementia can lead to extreme personality changes.

The second part suggests that the workings of the mind can effect the make up of the brain. I would have thought that this is not particularly controversial at all. The brain, being particularly plastic in its ability to function through different pathways, has long been known to adjust to all sorts of situations, so why should there be a problem with the idea of interaction between the brain and the mind? Indeed, example of London cab driver's brains increasing as they learn the 'knowledge' is a well known example of this.

And then, right at the end, he suddenly suggests that the answer lies in the existence of a 'soul'. Where did that come from then? He doesn't explain it, locate it, describe it, he just posits it.  You might as well say, we have a problem and the answer is 'X'.

To sum up.  For me, I didn't find it particularly informative. Liked the clever graphics though.

[Sriram]

The issue is not about the soul. That is an assumption. It is an external 'explain all' entity that can be called as soul, spirit or consciousness or whatever. It is an unknown.

The point is that the Mind is a very complex phenomenon having many layers. It cannot be entirely generated by the brain. Secondly, Consciousness seems to be the base phenomenon, the substratum that is different from the mind but utilizes both the mind and brain.

In that sense,  it is more meaningful to think of the Mind as software and the brain as hardware in which they are interdependent but not  necessarily generated in toto by one or the other.  At some levels the brain also functions like a radio receiver and the mind as radio signals.

It is a very complex phenomenon that cannot be simply brushed off as 'mind is generated by the brain'.  That is too simplistic.  Long way to go.

[Outrider]

The issue is not about the soul. That is an assumption. It is an external 'explain all' entity that can be called as soul, spirit or consciousness or whatever. It is an unknown.

Given that we don't have an accurate description for the concept that goes by 'soul', 'spirit', 'life-force' or whatever, it seems a useful shorthand.

I don't see how you go from this:

The point is that the Mind is a very complex phenomenon having many layers.

to this

It cannot be entirely generated by the brain.

If it's that complex then you can't be confident what it's capable of or not capable of.  Unfortunately I can't access the video itself, but if as it seems from the comments it's saying that science can't explain exactly how consciousness could come from the brain that's not proof that it doesn't it doesn't remove the burden of proof from someone making an alternative claim.

Secondly, Consciousness seems to be the base phenomenon, the substratum that is different from the mind but utilizes both the mind and brain.

That's one model, but it's not derived from anything evidentiary, it's the selection of someone with an inclination towards one of the explanatory models.  I presume that brain is the base phenomenon because there's evidence for it, and that mind and consciousness derive from brain because then I have sufficient evidence for all the elements, I just lack details of the mechanism.

In that sense,  it is more meaningful to think of the Mind as software and the brain as hardware in which they are interdependent but not  necessarily generated in toto by one or the other.

I can't recall who it was (NearlySane?) but I recall someone posting an excellent rejoinder a while back to the idea of the brain as a computer.  At a very superficial level it might be viable for certain simple considerations, but changing the software of the brain involves rewiring the hardware, and the hardware adapts to damage and injury to attempt to replace missing parts of software (to greater or lesser effect).

At some levels the brain also functions like a radio receiver and the mind as radio signals.

I'm not aware of any level at which the brain functions like a radio receiver - recieving signals from what?  It recieves sensory data, is that what you're referring to - I'd say that's more analagous to a computer getting signals from a keyboard or mouse.

O.

It is a very complex phenomenon that cannot be simply brushed off as 'mind is generated by the brain'.  That is too simplistic.  Long way to go.
[/quote]

[torridon]

The issue is not about the soul. That is an assumption. It is an external 'explain all' entity that can be called as soul, spirit or consciousness or whatever. It is an unknown.

The point is that the Mind is a very complex phenomenon having many layers. It cannot be entirely generated by the brain. Secondly, Consciousness seems to be the base phenomenon, the substratum that is different from the mind but utilizes both the mind and brain.

The mind may be complex, but hey, the brain is the most complex thing in the universe, so they say.  So it seems rather strange to be implying that the brain lacks sufficient complexity to generate mind.

Secondly, consciousness does not seem to be the base of the phenomenon, that is just one posited route out of the hard problem, but whether that idea gains traction or not remains to be seen. What is evident, is that consciousness as we observe it and measure it is derived from brain function and is a function of mind, although it is far from all of mind. People in coma have no consciousness whatsoever as far as we can tell. Similarly people in deep sleep or under general anesthetic have no or negligible consciousness but they still have a mind.  Consciousness is one of the functions of mind, but my no means the only one.  There is no evidence to support the notion that consciousness or mind are not aspects of brain function. We have never observed anything without a brain to be conscious

[Sebastian Toe]

We have never observed anything without a brain to be conscious

...Donald Trump?

[Sriram]

The mind may be complex, but hey, the brain is the most complex thing in the universe, so they say.  So it seems rather strange to be implying that the brain lacks sufficient complexity to generate mind.

Secondly, consciousness does not seem to be the base of the phenomenon, that is just one posited route out of the hard problem, but whether that idea gains traction or not remains to be seen. What is evident, is that consciousness as we observe it and measure it is derived from brain function and is a function of mind, although it is far from all of mind. People in coma have no consciousness whatsoever as far as we can tell. Similarly people in deep sleep or under general anesthetic have no or negligible consciousness but they still have a mind.  Consciousness is one of the functions of mind, but my no means the only one.  There is no evidence to support the notion that consciousness or mind are not aspects of brain function. We have never observed anything without a brain to be conscious

But that's like asking...'Can you receive radio signals without a receiver?' or 'Can you link into the internet without a hardware?'  No.... we can't.    But that does not mean that  radio signals emanate from within the receiver.... or that the internet is within the computer.

We  know that the brain is an important component of the total system. That is not in question.  The question is whether it is the primary source and generator of the mind or not. All observations woud be equally valid even if the mind is external (like software) to the brain but working with it.

Also, consciousness is observed  in simple organisms and even plants, that don't have a brain. The brain is only one way by which consciousness connects to the mind and body and expresses itself.

[torridon]

But that's like asking...'Can you receive radio signals without a receiver?' or 'Can you link into the internet without a hardware?'  No.... we can't.    But that does not mean that  radio signals emanate from within the receiver.... or that the internet is within the computer.

We  know that the brain is an important component of the total system. That is not in question.  The question is whether it is the primary source and generator of the mind or not. All observations woud be equally valid even if the mind is external (like software) to the brain but working with it.

Also, consciousness is observed  in simple organisms and even plants, that don't have a brain. The brain is only one way by which consciousness connects to the mind and body and expresses itself.

Consciousness is not something ontologically distinct that the brain picks up with some invisible antenna, it synthesises it out of primitives which are picked up through sensors. The brain has no immediate access to the outside world, encased in hard bony skill for its own protection, so it has built all manner of receivers to collect information about what is going on outside.  You've got your twin electomagnetic radiation detectors up front, twin compression wave sensors to the side, chemical receptors in nose and mouth and a tactile sensors at every point on the body, all these sensors wired up with thousands of miles of sheathed nerve fibres which are all networked into the brain where they are transduced, homogenised, post-processed and synchronised, the end result of which is your conscious experience.  Anyone can easily test the truth of this for themselves - you are conscious of your computer screen now, so, close your eyes, and you will immediately no longer have visual perception of your computer screen.

[Sriram]

Consciousness is not something ontologically distinct that the brain picks up with some invisible antenna, it synthesises it out of primitives which are picked up through sensors. The brain has no immediate access to the outside world, encased in hard bony skill for its own protection, so it has built all manner of receivers to collect information about what is going on outside.  You've got your twin electomagnetic radiation detectors up front, twin compression wave sensors to the side, chemical receptors in nose and mouth and a tactile sensors at every point on the body, all these sensors wired up with thousands of miles of sheathed nerve fibres which are all networked into the brain where they are transduced, homogenised, post-processed and synchronised, the end result of which is your conscious experience.  Anyone can easily test the truth of this for themselves - you are conscious of your computer screen now, so, close your eyes, and you will immediately no longer have visual perception of your computer screen.

You are merely making an assertion that 'consciousness is such and such....'.  You are giving a final conclusion. The point is that we don't know what consciousness is and that is why all this speculation.

You keep talking of simplistic things such as 'close the eyes and you can't see the TV'.  If I switch off the computer I cannot connect to the internet....but the internet does not disappear. It is still there. Similarly, the brain is also probably just a conduit...a hardware platform that enables the Consciousness and mind to function. 

[torridon]

You are merely making an assertion that 'consciousness is such and such....'.  You are giving a final conclusion. The point is that we don't know what consciousness is and that is why all this speculation.

You keep talking of simplistic things such as 'close the eyes and you can't see the TV'.  If I switch off the computer I cannot connect to the internet....but the internet does not disappear. It is still there. Similarly, the brain is also probably just a conduit...a hardware platform that enables the Consciousness and mind to function.

The problem with this analogy is that the Internet is a thing, which you can access with equipment; it exists independently of the equipment used to access it; however consciousness is not a thing, it is a process, like metabolism, or photosynthesis, or the running of my laptop while it transfers data to and from the internet. When you look at something, what is 'out there' is information encoded on electromagnetic radiation.  Consciousness is the experience of the transduction of that information into neural correlates.

[Sriram]

    You are not getting the point. You are already telling me what Consciousness is....as though you actually know everything about it!  That is just your view and not an established fact.

That is what the discussion is all about.