First we have no idea what consciousness in fact philosophers and mystics have a much closer colloquial understanding of consciousness than anything proposed by neuroscientists. We know that the brain can influence the consciousness and also that consciousness can influence the brain. This evidence fits perfectly into interactionism substance dualism. Where materialist's run into a big problem how can the mind have a great influence on our brain/body if the universe is a closed system?. Materialist's often come back by saying we don't deny the science evidence that the mind can influence the brain/body. Really? when they keep saying that it points in only one casual direction mind is caused by the brain or mind is what the brain does. Instead of saying the casualty is equally balanced. Which fits into a interactionism substance dualist view. However, it's often point out how can something immaterial like the mind affect something material. Well, it's rather easy if you let go of the assumption of seeing the universe as a closed system. Also, the evidence for survival of bodily death which has I have mentioned numerous times on here as well as the evidence for psi shows how untenable the assumption is that the brain somehow creates consciousness.
https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/08/the-mind-matters.html
Showing posts with label Mind Body Problem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mind Body Problem. Show all posts
Monday, July 2, 2018
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas Everyone!!!
I like to wish all of the readers reading this blog a very merry christmas and a happy new year. May you all enjoy the holiday season.
A little side note: I watched the lastest skeptiko podcast where scientist Michael Persinger was on. He mentioned how scientists must test for the supposed theory that the brain generates consciousness and the mind. I would say to he is wrong on this point we need to test for both theories [ Brain generates consciousness, mind], Brain receives or is a transceiver consciousness and mind].
A little side note: I watched the lastest skeptiko podcast where scientist Michael Persinger was on. He mentioned how scientists must test for the supposed theory that the brain generates consciousness and the mind. I would say to he is wrong on this point we need to test for both theories [ Brain generates consciousness, mind], Brain receives or is a transceiver consciousness and mind].
Friday, October 16, 2009
Examples Say The Materialists That Show Mind Is Produced By The Brain And My Response
We only know of cognition when there is a functioning brain present, we have seen no cognition where a brain was not present. That is, we have never observed mind without brain.
Leo- I disagree experiments in the cross correspondences for example clearly show mediums can obtain information from the otherside. Also other survival evidence clearly show that the mind can exist independent from the physical brain.
- Animals with more evolved, more complex brains always exhibit more intelligence and emotions than those with less evolved, less complex brains.
Leo- Yes a more advanced tv will take in the channels better too.
- Interventions in very specific parts of the brain result in very specific changes in cognitive function.
Leo- Ok yes just like changes in my tv will cause changes in my reception
- Mental illness has a strong genetic component.
Leo- Yes but this doesn't show that mind is produced by the brain
- We are learning to read brain activity and make sense of it in terms of emotions and thoughts.
Leo- Yes we are but that doesn't tell us if the brain is a producer of consciousness or the receiver of consciousness.
Leo- I disagree experiments in the cross correspondences for example clearly show mediums can obtain information from the otherside. Also other survival evidence clearly show that the mind can exist independent from the physical brain.
- Animals with more evolved, more complex brains always exhibit more intelligence and emotions than those with less evolved, less complex brains.
Leo- Yes a more advanced tv will take in the channels better too.
- Interventions in very specific parts of the brain result in very specific changes in cognitive function.
Leo- Ok yes just like changes in my tv will cause changes in my reception
- Mental illness has a strong genetic component.
Leo- Yes but this doesn't show that mind is produced by the brain
- We are learning to read brain activity and make sense of it in terms of emotions and thoughts.
Leo- Yes we are but that doesn't tell us if the brain is a producer of consciousness or the receiver of consciousness.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Mind, Brain and Consciousness
Materialists point out like we dualists already know that mind is radically affected by the effects of brain damage, drugs etc. Mind is information based so it's no surprise it's affected by these affects. This mind is connected to consciousness[subjective qualia]. This is the soul the essence of a person that is similiar to the physical body but slightly different. This is my take on things when it comes to the mind body problem. Of course i know many philosophers and neuroscientists would disagree. Just want to point out how i describe consciousness and the mind this appears to fit very well with the known facts from what we know in neuroscience. Except, of course for the last part that their is a immaterial soul that is connected to the mind and the brain. The evidence from the cross correspondences, book tests, drop in communicators among many other lines of evidence strongly points too not just that consciousness[soul] survives death but also the information[mind] continues as well.
Of course, i could be wrong about all of this. Perhaps all of the evidence that points strongly that we survive along with all other species is all just fraud, delusion, unconscious fraud etc. Perhaps but after many decades of extensive research done by many psychical research it sures look unlikely.
Of course, i could be wrong about all of this. Perhaps all of the evidence that points strongly that we survive along with all other species is all just fraud, delusion, unconscious fraud etc. Perhaps but after many decades of extensive research done by many psychical research it sures look unlikely.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Is Memories Created, Stored and Retrived In The Brain?
I guess it depends on how you see this problem itself, for example their are many problems in the way memory relates to the brain itself. We as survivalists are apparently suppose to accept the so called hard truth that memories are somehow generated by the brain not filtered or received by the brain. No dualist denies that memory is related to the brain but where we differ from materialists is we see that memory could survive death after the brain is destroyed. Keith Augustine asks what would a survivalist consider proof of personal extinction after death?. First, the word proof their doesn't exist in science. Science deals with probability and evidence. With that said what evidence would convince a survivalist of personal extinction?. Well i'm sure if their was zero evidence for survival or very little of it then extinction would be more likely than not.
In my view that appears not to be the case. So why you may ask after researching and evaluating the evidence from both sides, why have i sided with survival?. Well the evidence looks to be consistent and overwhelming where the case against survival has many holes in it. But not just many holes either but the evidence used to support it can be interpreted to support survival.
Here are the 10 unsolved mysteries of the brain and mind
How is information coded in neural activity?
How are memories stored and retrieved?
What does the baseline activity in the brain represent?
How do brains simulate the future?
What are emotions?
What is intelligence?
How is time represented in the brain?
Why do brains sleep and dream?
How do the specialized systems of the brain integrate with one another?
What is consciousness?
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=
In my view that appears not to be the case. So why you may ask after researching and evaluating the evidence from both sides, why have i sided with survival?. Well the evidence looks to be consistent and overwhelming where the case against survival has many holes in it. But not just many holes either but the evidence used to support it can be interpreted to support survival.
Here are the 10 unsolved mysteries of the brain and mind
How is information coded in neural activity?
How are memories stored and retrieved?
What does the baseline activity in the brain represent?
How do brains simulate the future?
What are emotions?
What is intelligence?
How is time represented in the brain?
Why do brains sleep and dream?
How do the specialized systems of the brain integrate with one another?
What is consciousness?
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/unsolved-brain-mysteries/article_view?b_start:int=2&-C=
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
In Defense Of Substance Dualism
Recently i have been debating on infidels forum about the mind body problem. One of the members mentioned how my receiver theory along with other substance dualist theories have far less parismony then the production hypothesis. I disagree, and i will show why. First he is using occams razor to use the simplest explanation, but occams razor doesn't work in all problems. Second, he mentions that Dr. Wilder Penfields conclusion on his work with epileptics is irrational, again i disagree. The same with Dr. Sir John Eccles when he mentions his conclusion is also irrational. Why, because of these scientists admitted evidence for dualism, that goes against the dominant view in mainstream science. The member also says that experiments have shown the casual connection between the brain and the mind. I disagree it assumes that their is very tight dependency so tight that their is a casucal connection.
Here is why the receiver theory has more parismony
- It accounts for the overwhelming evidence for survival of bodily death
- It accounts for the evidence for psi phenomena
- It accounts for the subjective nature of consciousness itself
- It accounts for other strange phenomena that are attested for in biomedical journals such as stigmata, maternal impressions etc.
- It accounts for free will
The major problems with the production theory
- Doesn't account for the evidence for survival of bodily death
- Doesn't account for the subjective nature of consciousness, tries to get around it by saying it's either epiphenomenal or an emergent property of the brain
- Doesn't account for free will
- Doesn't account for for things such as stigmata
- Doesn't account for the evidence for psi phenomena
Here is why the receiver theory has more parismony
- It accounts for the overwhelming evidence for survival of bodily death
- It accounts for the evidence for psi phenomena
- It accounts for the subjective nature of consciousness itself
- It accounts for other strange phenomena that are attested for in biomedical journals such as stigmata, maternal impressions etc.
- It accounts for free will
The major problems with the production theory
- Doesn't account for the evidence for survival of bodily death
- Doesn't account for the subjective nature of consciousness, tries to get around it by saying it's either epiphenomenal or an emergent property of the brain
- Doesn't account for free will
- Doesn't account for for things such as stigmata
- Doesn't account for the evidence for psi phenomena
Monday, June 29, 2009
Alcohol's Affect On The Mind Does It Show Evidence For The Production Theory?
It could, but it is also conceivable that the brain is a complex radio receiver. To explain the effects of alcohol on the mind, let's say their is alcohol in the radio itself like what happens when a person consumes affect, what happens is the radio is affected and so is the music, that is what happens when people consume alcohol their mind gets altered the same we would expect when their is alcohol in the radio.
On another note here is an interesting article called " ESP and the lottery
http://web.archive.org/web/20041009184641/www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm
On another note here is an interesting article called " ESP and the lottery
http://web.archive.org/web/20041009184641/www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Brain Is An Advanced Radio Receiver or Advanced Television receiver
The big mistake some dualists make is to say that the brain is a radio or tv receiver but when they say that they don't point out, that the analogy that they are using is not a simple one. That the brain is not a simple television or radio in it's workings. But that the brain is an advance tv or radio. The brain being a advance tv or radio is in accord with the facts, such as that the brain is very complexed, also that mediums a lot of the time have trouble tuning into spiritual realities. This would explain it because the more advanced the brain is which we humans have a very advance brain the more information gets filtered out. That information could be crucial in it's possible connection with these spiritual realities that mediums attempt to communicate with.
Of course physicalists say that the brain is an advanced computer and that the mind is software, the brain is the hardware. The problems with this analogy
1. The Chinese Room Argument [John Searle]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/
2. The failure Of Artifical Intelligence
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n02_AI_gone_awry.html
3. Certain things in the brain that conflict with the whole " brain is a advanced computer
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15621052.800-radio-head--the-brain-has-its-own-fm-receiver.html
Of course physicalists say that the brain is an advanced computer and that the mind is software, the brain is the hardware. The problems with this analogy
1. The Chinese Room Argument [John Searle]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/
2. The failure Of Artifical Intelligence
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n02_AI_gone_awry.html
3. Certain things in the brain that conflict with the whole " brain is a advanced computer
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15621052.800-radio-head--the-brain-has-its-own-fm-receiver.html
Friday, May 15, 2009
The Biggest Discovery Ever We All Appear To Survive Physical Death
You probably wonder like I do why the overwhelming evidence for survival, doesn't rock mainstream science out of it's materialistic presumptions about the nature of reality. Is it an conspirary? I shall argue it isn't an conspiracy, it is a fear but science being plunge and the world into an dark age. Even some psychical researchers couldn't accept the evidence for survival, because they didn't want to accept the implications. This is the same with mainstream science the implications are far too reality shattering, it would also replace materialism. Now mainstream scientists would fire back and say materialism has had great success and that we can understand the natural world this way perfectly. I got no problem with that, but is it the whole answer?, when a road block such as the nature of consciousness comes across materialism.
Some of the materialists say well consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain, others say it supervenes over the brain, while others say consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. All three of these materialist options all fall in the same assumption. That the brain somehow produces all of our thoughts, feelings, emotions, personality and memory. The thing is if the production model fails then we must look for an alternative. The alternative is that the brain is an receiver or filter of consciousness.
The filter or receiver theory had many advantages over the production theory, such as it can account for positive experimental results for large pk and other psi phenomena. Also it can account for all the evidence for survival and for other phenomena in psychology such as stigmata, the strong correlation between mind and brain, maternal impressions etc.
Of course i am not here to convince any hardcore materialist that simply will not happen. But perhaps materialist's are aren't so sure of their position can make up their own mind. That is all we survivalist's ask for.
Some of the materialists say well consciousness is an epiphenomenon of the brain, others say it supervenes over the brain, while others say consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. All three of these materialist options all fall in the same assumption. That the brain somehow produces all of our thoughts, feelings, emotions, personality and memory. The thing is if the production model fails then we must look for an alternative. The alternative is that the brain is an receiver or filter of consciousness.
The filter or receiver theory had many advantages over the production theory, such as it can account for positive experimental results for large pk and other psi phenomena. Also it can account for all the evidence for survival and for other phenomena in psychology such as stigmata, the strong correlation between mind and brain, maternal impressions etc.
Of course i am not here to convince any hardcore materialist that simply will not happen. But perhaps materialist's are aren't so sure of their position can make up their own mind. That is all we survivalist's ask for.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Can Dualism Account For Changes In Personality With Brain Damage?
I shall argue that it can. For example with the evidence for a soul, it is claimed by many materialists that Phineas Gage personality change was not just temporary but permanent. This however appears not to be so.
For example
Recently, an advertisement for a previously-unknown public appearance by Gage has been discovered, as have a report of his behavior during his time in Chile and a description of what may have been his daily work routine there as a long-distance coach driver. This new information suggests that the seriously maladapted Gage described by Harlow may have existed for only a limited number of years after the accident—that in later life Phineas may have been far more functional, and socially far better adapted, than has been thought. If this is so then (along with theoretical implications) it "would add to current evidence that rehabilitation can be effective even in difficult and long-standing cases," according to Macmillan.[36]
Now the materialists would say well that is just one case, what about other cases?. Those other cases that do show permanent change but perhaps instead of personality changed permanently maybe the personality is being constrained and restricted. With the overhype that Phineas Gage's personality change being permanent, it should make materialists not jump to an conclusion. if their are cases that may show that brain damage also results in permanent personality change.
Also their are accounts and physician Benjamin Rush an physician author of the first American treatise on mental illness. He observed that most mad people discover a less degree of reason in the last days or hours of their lives.
Here is a study involving this
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/79473/Alexandre-Jacques-Francois-Brierre-de-Boismont
Here's another link with more informaiton on the french studies
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/nineteenth_century_french_studies/v033/33.1vatan.pdf
For example
Recently, an advertisement for a previously-unknown public appearance by Gage has been discovered, as have a report of his behavior during his time in Chile and a description of what may have been his daily work routine there as a long-distance coach driver. This new information suggests that the seriously maladapted Gage described by Harlow may have existed for only a limited number of years after the accident—that in later life Phineas may have been far more functional, and socially far better adapted, than has been thought. If this is so then (along with theoretical implications) it "would add to current evidence that rehabilitation can be effective even in difficult and long-standing cases," according to Macmillan.[36]
Now the materialists would say well that is just one case, what about other cases?. Those other cases that do show permanent change but perhaps instead of personality changed permanently maybe the personality is being constrained and restricted. With the overhype that Phineas Gage's personality change being permanent, it should make materialists not jump to an conclusion. if their are cases that may show that brain damage also results in permanent personality change.
Also their are accounts and physician Benjamin Rush an physician author of the first American treatise on mental illness. He observed that most mad people discover a less degree of reason in the last days or hours of their lives.
Here is a study involving this
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/79473/Alexandre-Jacques-Francois-Brierre-de-Boismont
Here's another link with more informaiton on the french studies
http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/nineteenth_century_french_studies/v033/33.1vatan.pdf
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Need Evidence Of Mind Brain Dependency Discussion
I recently discussed the issue of mind brain dependency on infidels forum with a couple of users. We went back and forth. Here is the long discussion of exchanges we had.
doubtingt says
Here is a general list of just some types of evidence. While some only shows covariational dependence, others show definitive causal influence of brain changes upon every aspect of mental life. Combined, the body of evidence is quite clear and overwhelming in support of mind dependent on brain.
The effects of any drug on any aspect of mental activity or emotional experience (tens of thousands of controlled experiments demonstrating every requirement for not only dependency but causal direction).
The effects of brain tumors and their removal on mental activity
The effects of direct electrical stimulation of the brain
The effects of brain damage.
The effects of split brain surgery.
Brain imaging studies showing how various mental disorders correspond to differences in brain activity compared to the normal population.
Research showing how various organic deteriation of certain brain areas coincide and some of them precede certain disorders.
Sleep studies showing how various states of consciousness covary in virtual lock-step fashion with brain activity, and how directly altering or disrupting electro chem activity of the brain will change the state of consciousness.
Cross species neuro-psychology showing that various capacities for learning, reasoning, and emotional response (as evidenced by the observable behaviors that are dependent on such mental activities) covary in highly predictable ways with the existence and size of various brain structures.
Anthropological evidence that complex behaviors dependent on certain mental activities covaried across evolutionary time within hominids along with brain size.
Developmental evidence that various mental capacities increase from birth in a flattening curve pattern similar to the rate of brain growth (even after controlling for overall body mass growth). In addition, the mental capacity differences between humans and chimps diverge from birth on in a similar pattern the their diverging rates of brain growth.
Me LeoM says
Would you say that Wilder Penfield's work gave experimental support for mind brain dependency? Wilder Penfield never endorsed this theory, nor did he think that this was the best explanation for his data. Wilder Penfield started out an materialist until he started doing work with epileptic patients.
the vulnerability of consciousness to anesthetics, to caffeine, and to something as simple as a sharp blow to the head, shows its very close dependence on neural activity in the brain.
Damaging the circuitry of a TV set will impair its ability to display an image, but the TV signal is unaffected.
>As brain complexity increases, mental abilities also increase
Why? Because the brain can decode the signal with greater efficacy. To vary the analogy, a powerful radio can pick up more signals than a weak radio. Or to return to TV, a cable-ready TV can pick up more channels than one that is not cable-ready.
>Brain complexity, then, causes mental ability.
Correlation is not causality. Brain complexity is directly proportional to mental ability, but is this complexity necessary to produce consciousness or to receive and decode consciousness?
>If the brain and body are simply the instruments of the soul, we have to say in such a case that this personality is really still brimming over with joy and benevolence, but that unfortunately these sentiments can only express ["manifest"] themselves in dark glances, in peevish complaints and in violent attacks
In this case, the signal is undamaged, but when it is received by the brain and decoded, the reception/decoding is distorted or incomplete. In our earthly lives, our thoughts are mediated by our brains, so brain damage will affect our thoughts. But this does not tell us the ultimate source of consciousness. Remember, a damaged TV may display a blurry picture and produce garbled sound, even though the signal is as clear as ever. Bad TV reception does not equal a bad TV signal.
As far as the brain split phenomena goes they do not show two separate stream of consciousness.
http://kaffee.netfirms.com/Papers/PhilofMind3.htm
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
Treadkill says
But it does not cause the TV to display Jerry Seinfeld when the signal is an image of Brian Williams.
Leo M
Are you talking about people who has had brain damage where their personality changed from who they were to another person?.
Even though this blogger is an christian. She did bring a very good critique on the Phineas Gage case.
http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2009...ture-room.html
Treadkill
http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cg...stract/18/1/21
http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...t/full/48/1/67
Just a bit of Googling I did to show that the idea that brain injury can change personality does not rest solely on Phineas Gage.
Leo M
Of course it doesn't rest solely Phineas Gage. The question here is not the dependency but what type of dependency is it?. As long as their is strong alternative evidence, it gives us grounds to consider an alternative theory of the mind body relationship. Instead of the mind dying with the brain, Mind and consciousness are yes tied to the brain, but the brain acts as a filter, and receiver of consciousness rather than the producer of mind and consciousness. That alternative evidence comes from cardiac arrest patients in near death experiences.
Some of this evidence is discussed here.
http://near-death.com/experiences/articles002.html
Other evidences come from
How thinking can change your brain
the chemicals and electrical activity can affect (indeed, completely cause) the state of what we call the “mind,” but there is no going in reverse, in which mind affects the brain. In fact, the idea of going in reverse — according to the neuroscientists – is not even supposed to be conceivable, since “mind” is simply the word we use to describe the result of these physical processes and therefore has no independent existence apart from them.
This above evidence suggests that influence is not a one way street: That the mind can affect and change the brain.
Also experiments on humans (some of the Buddhist monks under the Dalai Lama’s direction) seem to demonstrate that the physical organ of the brain can be shaped and transformed by choices made by the mind.
Neuroscientist Jeffery Schwartz, who has documented the substantial evidence that mental changes can induce measurable changes in brain function.
http://machineslikeus.com/how-thinki...ange-the-brain
"For myself, after a professional lifetime spent i trying to discover how the brain accounts for the mind, it comes as a surprise now to discover, during this final examination of the evidence, that the dualist hypothesis seems the more reasonable of the two possible explanations. Mind comes into action and goes out of action with the highest brain-mechanism, it is true. But the mind has energy. The form of that energy is different from that of neuronal potentials that travel the axone pathways. There I must leave it."
Dr. Wilder Penfield- The Mystery of the Mind
Angra Mainyu says
Purely for example, damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments.
Generally, brain damage can result in, for instance, memory loss, or change in moral views. If, however, there's some undamaged "soul", why would it lose any memories? Why would its moral views change?
There are cases of bad reception with good signals
Actually, a TV receives signals and emits other signals that our eyes/brain/mind interpret. But the images on screen are generated in the TV - what's not generated in the TV is the EM radiations that are detected by the TV, but then, neither are the EM radiations that we perceive as color, or the signals that reach our brain in different ways.
for instance, spinal cord injuries and other medical conditions. In that case, the person can think as before, but he's unable to, say, move her hands, or maybe anything but his eyes.
On the other hand, brain damage - or brain affected by drugs - clearly changes consciousness. If it were a case of bad reception from an undamaged soul, then humans with brain damage, or under drugs, etc., would be at most unable to or partially impaired in putting their thoughts into action, but their thoughts would be unaffected. Perhaps, they would try to move a hand and fail. But that's not what happens. Their thoughts change. It's not that they can't move the hand, but that they want to move it the other way, so to speak. Their memories are lost; their personality affected, etc.
As for NDE, they're not something people would replicate in a lab; however, out of body experiences can be caused by altering the brain [some evidence]
Hidden Text:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...19269a.html#B1
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...s/419269a.html
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...full/127/2/243
Quote:
We suggest that OBE and AS are related to a failure to integrate proprioceptive, tactile and visual information with respect to one’s own body (disintegration in personal space) and by a vestibular dysfunction leading to an additional disintegration between personal (vestibular) space and extrapersonal (visual) space. We argue that both disintegrations (personal; personal–extrapersonal) are necessary for the occurrence of OBE and AS, and that they are due to a paroxysmal cerebral dysfunction of the TPJ in a state of partially and briefly impaired consciousness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Quote:
The results complement neurophysiological evidence and are consistent with the hypothesis that OBEs represent a breakdown in the normal binding of bodily-self sensations and suggest that out-of-body feelings (OBFs) are consequences of anomalous V-M experiences and precursors to a particular form of autoscopic experience, out-of-body autoscopy (OBA).
Angra Mainyu
Regarding causation, that's not a problem, but rather the result of different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, namely agents interacting with the world.
When we look at an agent (an adult human, a child, a chimpanzee, a dog), we can take two different approaches: We can look at them from a functional perspective, and talk about brain states, etc., or from an interpretative stance, using our cognitive system to simulate their state of mind - which is must easier if the other agent has a similar cognitive system, so we can read humans much better than we can read, say, dogs.
But considered the following:
John kicked dog A. Dog A squealed [because he was] in pain, then fled in fear.
Then, John kicked dog B, which also squealed in pain, but turned around, angry, and threatened John, growling.
Two young chimps, C and D, made an alliance in order to overthrow the group leader, C, and attacked him viciously. C believed he was secured in his position, but was mistaken.
That account takes an interpretative stance towards dogs/chimps (of course, we can do much better with humans).
The dogs squealed because they were in pain; one of them fled because he was afraid, etc. The chimps acted in order to do something, etc.
An account in terms of brain activity, pain receptors, and so on, would be very different, but also capable of explaining (and predicting) behavior.
If we had specific, detailed knowledge about what's going on in their brains - and the rest of their bodies, and the environment they interact with, since all this will affect what happens in the brain as well - we could explain and predict their behavior from a functional stance, without talking about pain, reason, "in order to", anger, threats, etc.
However, that's not in practice available, so simulating the other agent's mind - in other words, interpreting their actions in terms of subjective states like pain, anger, belief, etc., is the most effective way to interact with other agents, predict their behavior as accurately as we can - but our accuracy is always limited; we're interpreting what they're saying, and we can do that because our cognitive system has the capability to simulate similar ones; but they're similar, not exactly the same.
Angra Mainyu says
But if "mind" is the word we use to refer to the result of those processes (I'm not sure what the physical/non-physical distinction means, but regardless; my argument doesn't need it, since it considers the processes, whatever they are called), mind would also affect the brain, just as the result of some processes also causes other stuff.
In other words, causation wouldn't (doesn't) somehow stop. If we have brain activity causes something, and we call that something "mind", then that something in turn will cause something else, and so on. Lack of causation from mind is not what one would expect from the view that some processes in the brain cause mind. Rather, we would expect mind to be causally effective as well.
As I mentioned, it seems that the explanation that best fits the evidence is that we're looking at the same thing (namely, agents interacting in the world), from two different perspectives - two cognitively different perspectives; we're using different mental capabilities to look at them from an interpretative and a functional stance respectively.
Dualism, on the other hand, introduces an entity for which there is no evidence - namely, the soul -, and then can't explain why we can modify the soul by modifying the brain - using the TV analogy, that would be like modifying the signal by modifying the TV.
Angra Mainyu is offline Request Mod Action Reply With Quote
Leo M says
How would we know?, at death the soul takes a life of it's own. In physical life it is constrained by the brain. Also do you see consciousness as thoughts? memories? etc. I don't i see that as the mind which is information based but tied to both the soul and the brain. Yes i read the link before on trying to explain out of body experiences as mere brain chemistry. The problem is their no way near able to produce a full blown out of body experience. One of the patient in an nature article said she felt her legs becoming shorter and arms, and said she couldn't see her body from below. This is not what happens in out of body experiences the patients says he/she sees their body from above, they report no body distortions.
Here's an interesting book called the Irreducible Mind
http://books.google.ca/books?id=2oV6...esult&resnum=4
Angra Mainyu says
What's the evidence of that?
What we see is that if we alter the brain, the thoughts (perception, consciousness) change.
My point about the TV was to show that the case was in fact not analogous. We can alter the TV and we alter reception, but we do not alter the signal. If we alter the spinal cord, we alter reception. To be more precise, any alterations to the rest of the body would have some impact on the brain, given that there's feedback in the case of the brain and the rest of the body, where there isn't between the TV set and the TV station, but at least that's a closer analogy.
But when we alter the brain, we get a different personality, memories, etc. So, in that case, the change is quite clear. We can't, on the other hand, alter the TV station by altering the TV set.
What do you mean?
My point is that alterations in the brain result in alterations in the mind (perception, personality, memories, etc.); if the soul existed and were like the TV station with respect to the TV set, it would not be affected.
In practice, the souls adds another entity, with no evidence pointing to its existence.
I'm not sure how you construe this "soul" in a way that's separated from our thoughts. If the personality or the memories change, we have an entity with different thoughts (beliefs, intentions, etc.), and that would mean (if dualism were true) that the soul changed.
If not, it seems the soul would be a foreign entity, not our minds.
Actually, there were several studies and they replicate OBE - if you think there are others, that's like a "soul of the gaps", but the point remains that the feeling of "out of body" experiences can be caused by alterations in the brain, and even if we didn't have those experiments, our data wouldn't support dualism, since we would still have a lot of experiences demonstrating the effects from brain changes to mind changes - lack of knowledge in some specific cases notwithstanding.
Thanks, but I'm afraid I don't have time to read 650+ pages at the moment.
But I think the issue of "irreducibility" is often a confused one, I'd like to ask for clarification: In which sense are minds supposed to be reducible, or non-reducible?
Leo M says
My point is the soul is the subjectiveness of a person, that doesn't get affected, the personality and memories are yes connected to the soul, but the soul doesn't get affected because of it's subjectivity. Yes brain alterations create alterations in memories, personality which are [information] connected also to the inner life [soul, subjectiveness].
Here is an good rebuttal to all physicalist's theories on out of body experiences and near death experiences.
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/m...cible_min.html
Leo M says
Are you saying consciousness is an illusion?
Leo M says
Even an perfect correlation would not necessarily entail identity. It remains at least logically possible that minds and brains are distinct, though functionally linked together.
Angra Mainyu says
Do you have evidence that there exists a "subjectiveness" other than our thoughts?
What would that entity be like?
And by "memory changes" and "personality changes", I'm talking about different thoughts. For instance, if I recall what I did yesterday, I'm thinking of something that happened in the past. If I have certain personality traits, that means I tend to make some kinds of decisions, etc.
I don't know how you characterized "physicalist", but the point is that there is actual research (published in peer-reviewed magazines) that support that OBE are caused by certain specific brain alterations. Unfortunately, I see that most of the links I provided are no longer working (they were somewhat old), but you can find the articles if you like.
It's true that there are people that post on the internet attempting to rebut that research (though the article you provided doesn't address most of the findings I brought up) but the fact remains that there's already some evidence, and there will be more in the future (the gaps for the soul keep closing, but I think that one doesn't need any stronger evidence to rule out dualism; the gaps are only lack of knowledge, and of course they'll never be all closed, so I guess someone could always come up with a soul of the gaps, but based on an assessment of the evidence that's not religiously-laden, it should be ruled out).
Why do you think researchers keep publishing those papers, but rebuttals aren't published?
Side note: the TPL is the temporoparietal junction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Quote:
Here, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/18/1829
In any case, having little knowledge of a specific case is no reason to rule out the overwhelming evidence against dualism. Clearly, there's plenty we don't know about the brain. But we know enough to know that dualism is false, in my view.
Why do you think researchers keep publishing those papers, but rebuttals aren't published?
In any event, I would say that even if we completely ignore the evidence linking OBE with the brain, we would have to say that we don't know what causes them, but given the overwhelming evidence connecting brain and mind, it's very likely that some brain processes do; we just need to look harder and try to find them.
Angra Mainyu says
No.
But if by "consciousness" you mean some entity separated from our minds, then I don't think people have that illusion - they may have religious beliefs, but they don't perceive any such thing.
Angra Mainyu says
I don't know what you mean by "perfect correlation" (or by "irreducible", for that matter, which is why I was asking ), but in any event, I'm not claiming that dualism is logically impossible. I'm just saying that there's very strong evidence that it's false.
Leo M says
You mean this article in 2007, about out of body experiences
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0823141057.htm
Which was rebutted here
http://atwaterndenews.blogspot.com/2...ences-for.html
Also Dr. Jeffery Long near death researcher had this to say
Highlights: "Neither research team claimed to produce an OBE. Both research tems were clear they were tricking the body's sensory system and creating an illusion. Apparently no research subject in either study claimed to have a real OBE. These studies got a lot more press coverage than was warrented by the limited significance of their findings."
"A true, real out-of-body experience, especially if an aspect or component of the near-death phenomenon, typically involves extensive movement and interaction not only within the environment of the individual, but in novel, different, or far-flung environments unknown to the individual that are explored and investigated at length. When these individuals return to their bodies, they are able to recount in detail what they observed, heard, touched, sensed, smelled, and witnessed. Third-party verification of such details is commonplace."
"True out-of-body experiences do not match the results of the experiments conducted by the two neuroscientists reported on in Science Journal. What they did find, though, is quite intriguing and may indeed explain the phenomenon of the double-walker counterpart people have claimed that they had - since the earliest of times."
Or the rem intrusion study on out of body experiences
http://www.nderf.org/long_holden_rem.htm
Another rebuttal here too about another study
Out of body experiences: all in the brain?
http://www.iands.org/research/import...the_brain.html
Angra Mainyu says
Several of the studies I linked to, do mention OBEs.
Liks fixed:
Hidden Text:
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...full/127/2/243
Quote:
We suggest that OBE and AS are related to a failure to integrate proprioceptive, tactile and visual information with respect to one’s own body (disintegration in personal space) and by a vestibular dysfunction leading to an additional disintegration between personal (vestibular) space and extrapersonal (visual) space. We argue that both disintegrations (personal; personal–extrapersonal) are necessary for the occurrence of OBE and AS, and that they are due to a paroxysmal cerebral dysfunction of the TPJ in a state of partially and briefly impaired consciousness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Quote:
The results complement neurophysiological evidence and are consistent with the hypothesis that OBEs represent a breakdown in the normal binding of bodily-self sensations and suggest that out-of-body feelings (OBFs) are consequences of anomalous V-M experiences and precursors to a particular form of autoscopic experience, out-of-body autoscopy (OBA).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Quote:
These results suggest that the TPJ is a crucial structure for the conscious experience of the normal self, mediating spatial unity of self and body, and also suggest that impaired processing at the TPJ may lead to pathological selves such as OBEs.
Side note: the TPL is the temporoparietal junction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Quote:
Here, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/18/1829
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
And to add another one (this one about body-swapping):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1202115148.htm
Anyway, it wouldn't matter.
Evidence against dualism is very strong regardless of our lack of knowledge of some specific mental phenomena. We were justified in rejecting dualism before any studies in OBE were done (still, I hope more research is done, just to close that gap more tightly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoM
"A true, real out-of-body experience, especially if an aspect or component of the near-death phenomenon, typically involves extensive movement and interaction not only within the environment of the individual, but in novel, different, or far-flung environments unknown to the individual that are explored and investigated at length. When these individuals return to their bodies, they are able to recount in detail what they observed, heard, touched, sensed, smelled, and witnessed. Third-party verification of such details is commonplace."
Third-party verification of speaking in tongues, demon possession, witchcraft, faith healing, alien abduction, Voodoo, etc., is also widespread. As long as the third-party shares those beliefs, that will continue to happen.
However, experimental confirmation does not exist. People do not interact with far-flung environments, bring information back, etc.; on the contrary, research in OBE shows nothing of the sort.
Of course, by claiming that whenever that distant interaction does not happen, that's not a "real" OBE, then whenever scientists replicate OBE, and the findings are in conflict with the claim that people can obtain information from distant places during them (information that their senses wouldn't be able to obtain, from their actual location), then that's not a real OBE, effectively makes OBEs impossible to refute other by pointing out to the sheer unlikelihood of such unsubstantiated claims - like the soul, etc.
Originally Posted by LeoM
Or the rem intrusion study on out of body experiences
http://www.nderf.org/long_holden_rem.htm
Another rebuttal here too about another study
Out of body experiences: all in the brain?
http://www.iands.org/research/import...the_brain.html
Yes, I know there are people who post those claims on the internet. As I mentioned, those aren't pay-reviewed publications. At the Vatican's site, you can find claims of miracles too (whatever "miracle" means, the point is that they make quite extraordinary claims).
It is, however, a red herring. As I said, we have sufficient evidence even if we don't know how OBE happen.
For instance, how would dualism explain that changing the brain results in different memories, knowledge, moral views, perception, etc.?
Leo M says
It can it's called the transmission theory, however it is more complicated than the view that the brain produces consciousness and mind.
"I think these arguments can be addressed by the transmission theory of consciousness. As a simple analogy, the shows that appear on your TV do not originate inside the TV set. They originate as a signal broadcast through space. The TV picks up this signal and decodes it, translating it into pictures and sound. Now, if the TV is damaged, it may no longer produce a sharp picture or clear sound - but the signal will remain undamaged. Brain damage, etc., certainly affects the way we think and act, but if the transmission theory is true, it affects us because our "receiver" has been damaged.
In this case, the signal is undamaged, but when it is received by the brain and decoded, the reception/decoding is distorted or incomplete. In our earthly lives, our thoughts are mediated by our brains, so brain damage will affect our thoughts. But this does not tell us the ultimate source of consciousness. Remember, a damaged TV may display a blurry picture and produce garbled sound, even though the signal is as clear as ever. Bad TV reception does not equal a bad TV signal. Turn off the TV and the signal continues. The particular pattern of light and sound, as decoded by the receiver, is gone, but all the information that comprises the pattern is still in existence in the signal itself.
Of course, if psi phenomena are not genuine, then the "production theory" of consciousness must be preferred. But if psi phenomena are genuine, then the "transmission theory" fits the facts much more neatly. So it comes down to an evaluation of the empirical evidence." (Michael Prescott)
Links:
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/ar...sciousness.htm - Does Consciousness depend on the Brain?
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/ar...sciousness.htm - Can Consciousness Survive Destruction of the Brain?
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/con...id=86&pgtype=1 - Transmission Theory of Consciousness
That is just some of it, don't feel like copying the whole exchange but you get what the discussion is like.
doubtingt says
Here is a general list of just some types of evidence. While some only shows covariational dependence, others show definitive causal influence of brain changes upon every aspect of mental life. Combined, the body of evidence is quite clear and overwhelming in support of mind dependent on brain.
The effects of any drug on any aspect of mental activity or emotional experience (tens of thousands of controlled experiments demonstrating every requirement for not only dependency but causal direction).
The effects of brain tumors and their removal on mental activity
The effects of direct electrical stimulation of the brain
The effects of brain damage.
The effects of split brain surgery.
Brain imaging studies showing how various mental disorders correspond to differences in brain activity compared to the normal population.
Research showing how various organic deteriation of certain brain areas coincide and some of them precede certain disorders.
Sleep studies showing how various states of consciousness covary in virtual lock-step fashion with brain activity, and how directly altering or disrupting electro chem activity of the brain will change the state of consciousness.
Cross species neuro-psychology showing that various capacities for learning, reasoning, and emotional response (as evidenced by the observable behaviors that are dependent on such mental activities) covary in highly predictable ways with the existence and size of various brain structures.
Anthropological evidence that complex behaviors dependent on certain mental activities covaried across evolutionary time within hominids along with brain size.
Developmental evidence that various mental capacities increase from birth in a flattening curve pattern similar to the rate of brain growth (even after controlling for overall body mass growth). In addition, the mental capacity differences between humans and chimps diverge from birth on in a similar pattern the their diverging rates of brain growth.
Me LeoM says
Would you say that Wilder Penfield's work gave experimental support for mind brain dependency? Wilder Penfield never endorsed this theory, nor did he think that this was the best explanation for his data. Wilder Penfield started out an materialist until he started doing work with epileptic patients.
the vulnerability of consciousness to anesthetics, to caffeine, and to something as simple as a sharp blow to the head, shows its very close dependence on neural activity in the brain.
Damaging the circuitry of a TV set will impair its ability to display an image, but the TV signal is unaffected.
>As brain complexity increases, mental abilities also increase
Why? Because the brain can decode the signal with greater efficacy. To vary the analogy, a powerful radio can pick up more signals than a weak radio. Or to return to TV, a cable-ready TV can pick up more channels than one that is not cable-ready.
>Brain complexity, then, causes mental ability.
Correlation is not causality. Brain complexity is directly proportional to mental ability, but is this complexity necessary to produce consciousness or to receive and decode consciousness?
>If the brain and body are simply the instruments of the soul, we have to say in such a case that this personality is really still brimming over with joy and benevolence, but that unfortunately these sentiments can only express ["manifest"] themselves in dark glances, in peevish complaints and in violent attacks
In this case, the signal is undamaged, but when it is received by the brain and decoded, the reception/decoding is distorted or incomplete. In our earthly lives, our thoughts are mediated by our brains, so brain damage will affect our thoughts. But this does not tell us the ultimate source of consciousness. Remember, a damaged TV may display a blurry picture and produce garbled sound, even though the signal is as clear as ever. Bad TV reception does not equal a bad TV signal.
As far as the brain split phenomena goes they do not show two separate stream of consciousness.
http://kaffee.netfirms.com/Papers/PhilofMind3.htm
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
Treadkill says
But it does not cause the TV to display Jerry Seinfeld when the signal is an image of Brian Williams.
Leo M
Are you talking about people who has had brain damage where their personality changed from who they were to another person?.
Even though this blogger is an christian. She did bring a very good critique on the Phineas Gage case.
http://mindfulhack.blogspot.com/2009...ture-room.html
Treadkill
http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cg...stract/18/1/21
http://psy.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...t/full/48/1/67
Just a bit of Googling I did to show that the idea that brain injury can change personality does not rest solely on Phineas Gage.
Leo M
Of course it doesn't rest solely Phineas Gage. The question here is not the dependency but what type of dependency is it?. As long as their is strong alternative evidence, it gives us grounds to consider an alternative theory of the mind body relationship. Instead of the mind dying with the brain, Mind and consciousness are yes tied to the brain, but the brain acts as a filter, and receiver of consciousness rather than the producer of mind and consciousness. That alternative evidence comes from cardiac arrest patients in near death experiences.
Some of this evidence is discussed here.
http://near-death.com/experiences/articles002.html
Other evidences come from
How thinking can change your brain
the chemicals and electrical activity can affect (indeed, completely cause) the state of what we call the “mind,” but there is no going in reverse, in which mind affects the brain. In fact, the idea of going in reverse — according to the neuroscientists – is not even supposed to be conceivable, since “mind” is simply the word we use to describe the result of these physical processes and therefore has no independent existence apart from them.
This above evidence suggests that influence is not a one way street: That the mind can affect and change the brain.
Also experiments on humans (some of the Buddhist monks under the Dalai Lama’s direction) seem to demonstrate that the physical organ of the brain can be shaped and transformed by choices made by the mind.
Neuroscientist Jeffery Schwartz, who has documented the substantial evidence that mental changes can induce measurable changes in brain function.
http://machineslikeus.com/how-thinki...ange-the-brain
"For myself, after a professional lifetime spent i trying to discover how the brain accounts for the mind, it comes as a surprise now to discover, during this final examination of the evidence, that the dualist hypothesis seems the more reasonable of the two possible explanations. Mind comes into action and goes out of action with the highest brain-mechanism, it is true. But the mind has energy. The form of that energy is different from that of neuronal potentials that travel the axone pathways. There I must leave it."
Dr. Wilder Penfield- The Mystery of the Mind
Angra Mainyu says
Purely for example, damage to the prefrontal cortex increases utilitarian moral judgments.
Generally, brain damage can result in, for instance, memory loss, or change in moral views. If, however, there's some undamaged "soul", why would it lose any memories? Why would its moral views change?
There are cases of bad reception with good signals
Actually, a TV receives signals and emits other signals that our eyes/brain/mind interpret. But the images on screen are generated in the TV - what's not generated in the TV is the EM radiations that are detected by the TV, but then, neither are the EM radiations that we perceive as color, or the signals that reach our brain in different ways.
for instance, spinal cord injuries and other medical conditions. In that case, the person can think as before, but he's unable to, say, move her hands, or maybe anything but his eyes.
On the other hand, brain damage - or brain affected by drugs - clearly changes consciousness. If it were a case of bad reception from an undamaged soul, then humans with brain damage, or under drugs, etc., would be at most unable to or partially impaired in putting their thoughts into action, but their thoughts would be unaffected. Perhaps, they would try to move a hand and fail. But that's not what happens. Their thoughts change. It's not that they can't move the hand, but that they want to move it the other way, so to speak. Their memories are lost; their personality affected, etc.
As for NDE, they're not something people would replicate in a lab; however, out of body experiences can be caused by altering the brain [some evidence]
Hidden Text:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...19269a.html#B1
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...s/419269a.html
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...full/127/2/243
Quote:
We suggest that OBE and AS are related to a failure to integrate proprioceptive, tactile and visual information with respect to one’s own body (disintegration in personal space) and by a vestibular dysfunction leading to an additional disintegration between personal (vestibular) space and extrapersonal (visual) space. We argue that both disintegrations (personal; personal–extrapersonal) are necessary for the occurrence of OBE and AS, and that they are due to a paroxysmal cerebral dysfunction of the TPJ in a state of partially and briefly impaired consciousness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Quote:
The results complement neurophysiological evidence and are consistent with the hypothesis that OBEs represent a breakdown in the normal binding of bodily-self sensations and suggest that out-of-body feelings (OBFs) are consequences of anomalous V-M experiences and precursors to a particular form of autoscopic experience, out-of-body autoscopy (OBA).
Angra Mainyu
Regarding causation, that's not a problem, but rather the result of different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, namely agents interacting with the world.
When we look at an agent (an adult human, a child, a chimpanzee, a dog), we can take two different approaches: We can look at them from a functional perspective, and talk about brain states, etc., or from an interpretative stance, using our cognitive system to simulate their state of mind - which is must easier if the other agent has a similar cognitive system, so we can read humans much better than we can read, say, dogs.
But considered the following:
John kicked dog A. Dog A squealed [because he was] in pain, then fled in fear.
Then, John kicked dog B, which also squealed in pain, but turned around, angry, and threatened John, growling.
Two young chimps, C and D, made an alliance in order to overthrow the group leader, C, and attacked him viciously. C believed he was secured in his position, but was mistaken.
That account takes an interpretative stance towards dogs/chimps (of course, we can do much better with humans).
The dogs squealed because they were in pain; one of them fled because he was afraid, etc. The chimps acted in order to do something, etc.
An account in terms of brain activity, pain receptors, and so on, would be very different, but also capable of explaining (and predicting) behavior.
If we had specific, detailed knowledge about what's going on in their brains - and the rest of their bodies, and the environment they interact with, since all this will affect what happens in the brain as well - we could explain and predict their behavior from a functional stance, without talking about pain, reason, "in order to", anger, threats, etc.
However, that's not in practice available, so simulating the other agent's mind - in other words, interpreting their actions in terms of subjective states like pain, anger, belief, etc., is the most effective way to interact with other agents, predict their behavior as accurately as we can - but our accuracy is always limited; we're interpreting what they're saying, and we can do that because our cognitive system has the capability to simulate similar ones; but they're similar, not exactly the same.
Angra Mainyu says
But if "mind" is the word we use to refer to the result of those processes (I'm not sure what the physical/non-physical distinction means, but regardless; my argument doesn't need it, since it considers the processes, whatever they are called), mind would also affect the brain, just as the result of some processes also causes other stuff.
In other words, causation wouldn't (doesn't) somehow stop. If we have brain activity causes something, and we call that something "mind", then that something in turn will cause something else, and so on. Lack of causation from mind is not what one would expect from the view that some processes in the brain cause mind. Rather, we would expect mind to be causally effective as well.
As I mentioned, it seems that the explanation that best fits the evidence is that we're looking at the same thing (namely, agents interacting in the world), from two different perspectives - two cognitively different perspectives; we're using different mental capabilities to look at them from an interpretative and a functional stance respectively.
Dualism, on the other hand, introduces an entity for which there is no evidence - namely, the soul -, and then can't explain why we can modify the soul by modifying the brain - using the TV analogy, that would be like modifying the signal by modifying the TV.
Angra Mainyu is offline Request Mod Action Reply With Quote
Leo M says
How would we know?, at death the soul takes a life of it's own. In physical life it is constrained by the brain. Also do you see consciousness as thoughts? memories? etc. I don't i see that as the mind which is information based but tied to both the soul and the brain. Yes i read the link before on trying to explain out of body experiences as mere brain chemistry. The problem is their no way near able to produce a full blown out of body experience. One of the patient in an nature article said she felt her legs becoming shorter and arms, and said she couldn't see her body from below. This is not what happens in out of body experiences the patients says he/she sees their body from above, they report no body distortions.
Here's an interesting book called the Irreducible Mind
http://books.google.ca/books?id=2oV6...esult&resnum=4
Angra Mainyu says
What's the evidence of that?
What we see is that if we alter the brain, the thoughts (perception, consciousness) change.
My point about the TV was to show that the case was in fact not analogous. We can alter the TV and we alter reception, but we do not alter the signal. If we alter the spinal cord, we alter reception. To be more precise, any alterations to the rest of the body would have some impact on the brain, given that there's feedback in the case of the brain and the rest of the body, where there isn't between the TV set and the TV station, but at least that's a closer analogy.
But when we alter the brain, we get a different personality, memories, etc. So, in that case, the change is quite clear. We can't, on the other hand, alter the TV station by altering the TV set.
What do you mean?
My point is that alterations in the brain result in alterations in the mind (perception, personality, memories, etc.); if the soul existed and were like the TV station with respect to the TV set, it would not be affected.
In practice, the souls adds another entity, with no evidence pointing to its existence.
I'm not sure how you construe this "soul" in a way that's separated from our thoughts. If the personality or the memories change, we have an entity with different thoughts (beliefs, intentions, etc.), and that would mean (if dualism were true) that the soul changed.
If not, it seems the soul would be a foreign entity, not our minds.
Actually, there were several studies and they replicate OBE - if you think there are others, that's like a "soul of the gaps", but the point remains that the feeling of "out of body" experiences can be caused by alterations in the brain, and even if we didn't have those experiments, our data wouldn't support dualism, since we would still have a lot of experiences demonstrating the effects from brain changes to mind changes - lack of knowledge in some specific cases notwithstanding.
Thanks, but I'm afraid I don't have time to read 650+ pages at the moment.
But I think the issue of "irreducibility" is often a confused one, I'd like to ask for clarification: In which sense are minds supposed to be reducible, or non-reducible?
Leo M says
My point is the soul is the subjectiveness of a person, that doesn't get affected, the personality and memories are yes connected to the soul, but the soul doesn't get affected because of it's subjectivity. Yes brain alterations create alterations in memories, personality which are [information] connected also to the inner life [soul, subjectiveness].
Here is an good rebuttal to all physicalist's theories on out of body experiences and near death experiences.
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/m...cible_min.html
Leo M says
Are you saying consciousness is an illusion?
Leo M says
Even an perfect correlation would not necessarily entail identity. It remains at least logically possible that minds and brains are distinct, though functionally linked together.
Angra Mainyu says
Do you have evidence that there exists a "subjectiveness" other than our thoughts?
What would that entity be like?
And by "memory changes" and "personality changes", I'm talking about different thoughts. For instance, if I recall what I did yesterday, I'm thinking of something that happened in the past. If I have certain personality traits, that means I tend to make some kinds of decisions, etc.
I don't know how you characterized "physicalist", but the point is that there is actual research (published in peer-reviewed magazines) that support that OBE are caused by certain specific brain alterations. Unfortunately, I see that most of the links I provided are no longer working (they were somewhat old), but you can find the articles if you like.
It's true that there are people that post on the internet attempting to rebut that research (though the article you provided doesn't address most of the findings I brought up) but the fact remains that there's already some evidence, and there will be more in the future (the gaps for the soul keep closing, but I think that one doesn't need any stronger evidence to rule out dualism; the gaps are only lack of knowledge, and of course they'll never be all closed, so I guess someone could always come up with a soul of the gaps, but based on an assessment of the evidence that's not religiously-laden, it should be ruled out).
Why do you think researchers keep publishing those papers, but rebuttals aren't published?
Side note: the TPL is the temporoparietal junction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Quote:
Here, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/18/1829
In any case, having little knowledge of a specific case is no reason to rule out the overwhelming evidence against dualism. Clearly, there's plenty we don't know about the brain. But we know enough to know that dualism is false, in my view.
Why do you think researchers keep publishing those papers, but rebuttals aren't published?
In any event, I would say that even if we completely ignore the evidence linking OBE with the brain, we would have to say that we don't know what causes them, but given the overwhelming evidence connecting brain and mind, it's very likely that some brain processes do; we just need to look harder and try to find them.
Angra Mainyu says
No.
But if by "consciousness" you mean some entity separated from our minds, then I don't think people have that illusion - they may have religious beliefs, but they don't perceive any such thing.
Angra Mainyu says
I don't know what you mean by "perfect correlation" (or by "irreducible", for that matter, which is why I was asking ), but in any event, I'm not claiming that dualism is logically impossible. I'm just saying that there's very strong evidence that it's false.
Leo M says
You mean this article in 2007, about out of body experiences
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0823141057.htm
Which was rebutted here
http://atwaterndenews.blogspot.com/2...ences-for.html
Also Dr. Jeffery Long near death researcher had this to say
Highlights: "Neither research team claimed to produce an OBE. Both research tems were clear they were tricking the body's sensory system and creating an illusion. Apparently no research subject in either study claimed to have a real OBE. These studies got a lot more press coverage than was warrented by the limited significance of their findings."
"A true, real out-of-body experience, especially if an aspect or component of the near-death phenomenon, typically involves extensive movement and interaction not only within the environment of the individual, but in novel, different, or far-flung environments unknown to the individual that are explored and investigated at length. When these individuals return to their bodies, they are able to recount in detail what they observed, heard, touched, sensed, smelled, and witnessed. Third-party verification of such details is commonplace."
"True out-of-body experiences do not match the results of the experiments conducted by the two neuroscientists reported on in Science Journal. What they did find, though, is quite intriguing and may indeed explain the phenomenon of the double-walker counterpart people have claimed that they had - since the earliest of times."
Or the rem intrusion study on out of body experiences
http://www.nderf.org/long_holden_rem.htm
Another rebuttal here too about another study
Out of body experiences: all in the brain?
http://www.iands.org/research/import...the_brain.html
Angra Mainyu says
Several of the studies I linked to, do mention OBEs.
Liks fixed:
Hidden Text:
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...full/127/2/243
Quote:
We suggest that OBE and AS are related to a failure to integrate proprioceptive, tactile and visual information with respect to one’s own body (disintegration in personal space) and by a vestibular dysfunction leading to an additional disintegration between personal (vestibular) space and extrapersonal (visual) space. We argue that both disintegrations (personal; personal–extrapersonal) are necessary for the occurrence of OBE and AS, and that they are due to a paroxysmal cerebral dysfunction of the TPJ in a state of partially and briefly impaired consciousness.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Quote:
The results complement neurophysiological evidence and are consistent with the hypothesis that OBEs represent a breakdown in the normal binding of bodily-self sensations and suggest that out-of-body feelings (OBFs) are consequences of anomalous V-M experiences and precursors to a particular form of autoscopic experience, out-of-body autoscopy (OBA).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Quote:
These results suggest that the TPJ is a crucial structure for the conscious experience of the normal self, mediating spatial unity of self and body, and also suggest that impaired processing at the TPJ may lead to pathological selves such as OBEs.
Side note: the TPL is the temporoparietal junction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
Quote:
Here, we review some of the classical precipitating factors of OBEs such as sleep, drug abuse, and general anesthesia as well as their neurobiology and compare them with recent findings on neurological and neurocognitive mechanisms of OBEs. The reviewed data suggest that OBEs are due to functional disintegration of lower-level multisensory processing and abnormal higher-level self-processing at the temporo-parietal junction.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/18/1829
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
And to add another one (this one about body-swapping):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1202115148.htm
Anyway, it wouldn't matter.
Evidence against dualism is very strong regardless of our lack of knowledge of some specific mental phenomena. We were justified in rejecting dualism before any studies in OBE were done (still, I hope more research is done, just to close that gap more tightly).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeoM
"A true, real out-of-body experience, especially if an aspect or component of the near-death phenomenon, typically involves extensive movement and interaction not only within the environment of the individual, but in novel, different, or far-flung environments unknown to the individual that are explored and investigated at length. When these individuals return to their bodies, they are able to recount in detail what they observed, heard, touched, sensed, smelled, and witnessed. Third-party verification of such details is commonplace."
Third-party verification of speaking in tongues, demon possession, witchcraft, faith healing, alien abduction, Voodoo, etc., is also widespread. As long as the third-party shares those beliefs, that will continue to happen.
However, experimental confirmation does not exist. People do not interact with far-flung environments, bring information back, etc.; on the contrary, research in OBE shows nothing of the sort.
Of course, by claiming that whenever that distant interaction does not happen, that's not a "real" OBE, then whenever scientists replicate OBE, and the findings are in conflict with the claim that people can obtain information from distant places during them (information that their senses wouldn't be able to obtain, from their actual location), then that's not a real OBE, effectively makes OBEs impossible to refute other by pointing out to the sheer unlikelihood of such unsubstantiated claims - like the soul, etc.
Originally Posted by LeoM
Or the rem intrusion study on out of body experiences
http://www.nderf.org/long_holden_rem.htm
Another rebuttal here too about another study
Out of body experiences: all in the brain?
http://www.iands.org/research/import...the_brain.html
Yes, I know there are people who post those claims on the internet. As I mentioned, those aren't pay-reviewed publications. At the Vatican's site, you can find claims of miracles too (whatever "miracle" means, the point is that they make quite extraordinary claims).
It is, however, a red herring. As I said, we have sufficient evidence even if we don't know how OBE happen.
For instance, how would dualism explain that changing the brain results in different memories, knowledge, moral views, perception, etc.?
Leo M says
It can it's called the transmission theory, however it is more complicated than the view that the brain produces consciousness and mind.
"I think these arguments can be addressed by the transmission theory of consciousness. As a simple analogy, the shows that appear on your TV do not originate inside the TV set. They originate as a signal broadcast through space. The TV picks up this signal and decodes it, translating it into pictures and sound. Now, if the TV is damaged, it may no longer produce a sharp picture or clear sound - but the signal will remain undamaged. Brain damage, etc., certainly affects the way we think and act, but if the transmission theory is true, it affects us because our "receiver" has been damaged.
In this case, the signal is undamaged, but when it is received by the brain and decoded, the reception/decoding is distorted or incomplete. In our earthly lives, our thoughts are mediated by our brains, so brain damage will affect our thoughts. But this does not tell us the ultimate source of consciousness. Remember, a damaged TV may display a blurry picture and produce garbled sound, even though the signal is as clear as ever. Bad TV reception does not equal a bad TV signal. Turn off the TV and the signal continues. The particular pattern of light and sound, as decoded by the receiver, is gone, but all the information that comprises the pattern is still in existence in the signal itself.
Of course, if psi phenomena are not genuine, then the "production theory" of consciousness must be preferred. But if psi phenomena are genuine, then the "transmission theory" fits the facts much more neatly. So it comes down to an evaluation of the empirical evidence." (Michael Prescott)
Links:
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/ar...sciousness.htm - Does Consciousness depend on the Brain?
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/ar...sciousness.htm - Can Consciousness Survive Destruction of the Brain?
http://www.esalenctr.org/display/con...id=86&pgtype=1 - Transmission Theory of Consciousness
That is just some of it, don't feel like copying the whole exchange but you get what the discussion is like.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Why Materialism Is An Complete Dead End When It Comes To Consciousness
First i like to put the mind and body in three categories
1] The physical brain and body
2] The mind [mental] information
3] Consciousness[subjective] immaterial soul
Some materialists believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. The problem with this is, consciousness is subjective it is the only thing we know that is "subjective". All emergent things are physical, in nature where consciousness is nonphysical. The only way we can solve the mind body problem is to take both the objective evidence we have and the subjective evidence as well.
1] The physical brain and body
2] The mind [mental] information
3] Consciousness[subjective] immaterial soul
Some materialists believe that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. The problem with this is, consciousness is subjective it is the only thing we know that is "subjective". All emergent things are physical, in nature where consciousness is nonphysical. The only way we can solve the mind body problem is to take both the objective evidence we have and the subjective evidence as well.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Infinite Regression Argument Against Substance Dualism Refuted
I like to make it clear that i think the soul is not a little man in the brain but is similar to the physical body. Nonetheless materialists argue that if there is an observer in the body that observer would require other observers and so on. The major problem with this is if the soul is immortal their wouldn't be no need for an infinite amount of observers [souls]. In the arena of neuroscience the common held view is that consciousness and the mind is an emergent property of the brain. Then their are some scientists who disagree and postulate that consciousness is an illusion created by the brain.
I think in order for us to solve the mind body problem we much embrace substance dualism. Obviously substance dualism has been tied to religion however their are some dualists such as me that don't go to church or read an bible. Also aren't associated with any other religions.
I think in order for us to solve the mind body problem we much embrace substance dualism. Obviously substance dualism has been tied to religion however their are some dualists such as me that don't go to church or read an bible. Also aren't associated with any other religions.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Naturalism
I mentioned before how the universe is finely tuned. But not just the laws but it also seems that the cosmological constant is very finely tuned. Anthropic scientists had no other alternative but to consider an intelligent designer. That was the very last thing they wanted to do. So after awhile came the many world's interpretation that their are an infinite number of parallel universes. However again the need for a intelligent deisigner came about because some of those universes are likely to be very complex. So now their is speculation that we are living in an computer stimulation, this offers a natural mechanism. So as you see nothing can knock of naturalism. Naturalism is held as a position, and it more tightly defended when contrary evidence comes along like mentioned above. Of course, other contrary evidence is survival of bodily which their is vasts amounts of evidence supporting it. Also psi phenomena and other type of phenomena such as stigmata etc.
Here's is an interesting pdf lecture by Alan Gauld on memory traces.
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~thegroundoffaith/Lecture_3.pdf
At the end of the lecture Alan Gauld conclusion is follows
An viable theory of memory will accommodate:
1. Top down rather than bottom up. Laws characterizing the system as a whole, rather than the whole being derived from the parts.
2. Memories cannot be tied to particular anatomical loci. Memories can be transferred to different parts of the brain.
3. It will regard nerve tracts that transmit nerve impulses to one part of the brain to another not as conduits for the transmission of 'information' in the loose sense commonly adopted by psychologists, but as means by which spatiotemporal patterns of activity in different regions may be fined tuned to create overarching patterns.
4. We cannot regard the matter as decided and clear....work in progress
Here's is an interesting pdf lecture by Alan Gauld on memory traces.
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~thegroundoffaith/Lecture_3.pdf
At the end of the lecture Alan Gauld conclusion is follows
An viable theory of memory will accommodate:
1. Top down rather than bottom up. Laws characterizing the system as a whole, rather than the whole being derived from the parts.
2. Memories cannot be tied to particular anatomical loci. Memories can be transferred to different parts of the brain.
3. It will regard nerve tracts that transmit nerve impulses to one part of the brain to another not as conduits for the transmission of 'information' in the loose sense commonly adopted by psychologists, but as means by which spatiotemporal patterns of activity in different regions may be fined tuned to create overarching patterns.
4. We cannot regard the matter as decided and clear....work in progress
Monday, February 23, 2009
Four Possible Solutions To The Mind Body Problem
Here are four possible solutions to the mind body problem
1. Physicalism- everything is physical
2. Idealism- Everything is consciousness, the physical is an illusion
3. Neutral Monism- The physical and mental are two ways of looking at the same thing
4. Dualism- The physical exists but so does a mental reality
I for one support dualism, the reason for this is by the way the evidence appears to be pointing. Of course neutral monism, idealism and physicalism are all monistic solutions to how reality works. Where dualism isn't.
1. Physicalism- everything is physical
2. Idealism- Everything is consciousness, the physical is an illusion
3. Neutral Monism- The physical and mental are two ways of looking at the same thing
4. Dualism- The physical exists but so does a mental reality
I for one support dualism, the reason for this is by the way the evidence appears to be pointing. Of course neutral monism, idealism and physicalism are all monistic solutions to how reality works. Where dualism isn't.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Implications Of The Empirical Evidence For Survival
Obviously the implications are huge, I have often pondered the implications of it. Of course their are still materialists who say the evidence can be explained away by natural explanations. For those you believe that, I think they should consider doing some research on experts in afterlife research. Then conclude for or against survival. One of the most often problems materialists have is, they say that they have researched the evidence for survival. But the fact is when you start talking to them, you soon find out that they haven't bother to research the evidence.
Could survival after death not be true?. Of course, that is certainly is something worth considering. What we deal with in science anyways is probability not facts. So with that I would conclude the probability is far greater of survival being true, then not true.
Now the common objection to survival with the transmission theory, is it falsifible? Which I don't think is true, one way to falsify it is to show that our brain isn't a receiver of consciousness. How would we show that?. Well one is through further investigation. We shouldn't rule out transmission theory because it is complicated, or write it off as an apriori.
Just because the production theory is simple doesn't mean it is more probabilble then the transmission theory. We must look at all the facts. Some evidence that materialists use to support their case which are open to different interpretations. For example, Benjamin Libet's finding that brain activity precedes a conscious decision, which is routinely presented by sceptics, in their dull way, as 'another nail in the coffin for dualism' (Blackmore, Dying to Live, p. 237), and which of course is open to contrary interpretations, as Libet himself pointed out. Wilder Penfield's experimental findings on the neurological basis of memory is also used by sceptics in an anti-dualist sense which Penfield himself did not endorse.
Could survival after death not be true?. Of course, that is certainly is something worth considering. What we deal with in science anyways is probability not facts. So with that I would conclude the probability is far greater of survival being true, then not true.
Now the common objection to survival with the transmission theory, is it falsifible? Which I don't think is true, one way to falsify it is to show that our brain isn't a receiver of consciousness. How would we show that?. Well one is through further investigation. We shouldn't rule out transmission theory because it is complicated, or write it off as an apriori.
Just because the production theory is simple doesn't mean it is more probabilble then the transmission theory. We must look at all the facts. Some evidence that materialists use to support their case which are open to different interpretations. For example, Benjamin Libet's finding that brain activity precedes a conscious decision, which is routinely presented by sceptics, in their dull way, as 'another nail in the coffin for dualism' (Blackmore, Dying to Live, p. 237), and which of course is open to contrary interpretations, as Libet himself pointed out. Wilder Penfield's experimental findings on the neurological basis of memory is also used by sceptics in an anti-dualist sense which Penfield himself did not endorse.
Monday, January 5, 2009
The Transmission Theory
The reasons why the transmission theory can explain the mind/body problem are as follows.
1] Can explain both the third and first experience
2.] Can account for psi, evidence for survival
3.] Is compatible with Physics
1] Can explain both the third and first experience
2.] Can account for psi, evidence for survival
3.] Is compatible with Physics
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Is The Mind Material Or Immaterial?
I will argue that the mind is immaterial based on lots of arguments. I have discussed evidence before for dualism.
First by the introspection argument
The Argument from Introspection
"A more universal consideration is the argument from introspection. The fact is, when you center your attention on the contents of your consciousness, you do not clearly apprehend a neural network pulsing with electrochemical activity: you apprehend a flux of thoughts, sensations, desires, and emotions. It seems that mental states and properties, as revealed in introspection, could hardly be more different from physical states and properties if they tried. The verdict of introspection, therefore, seems strongly on the side of some form of dualism"
Another argument for dualism is the premise that we have privileged access to our mental states.
the premise that you have a special ways of knowing about your own mental states. This knowledge is not usually based on any evidence or observation. You can just tell that you're thinking about elephants. You don't have to infer it from any evidence. But other people do have to infer what you're thinking, from your behavior and from what you say. So you're in a better position to know what you're thinking than they are. You have a kind of special or privileged access to your mental states which other people lack.
You don't have any privileged access of that sort to your height or weight or shoe size. In principle, other people could be in a better position to know your height than you are.
Most philosophers will agree that we do have some kind of privileged access to our own mental states, even if it is difficult to spell that claim out in detail.
But some philosophers go further and argue that the only way we can explain or account for this privileged access is if facts about your mind are facts about what's happening in some private non-physical realm. Physical objects and their physical properties, on the other hand, are all publicly accessible. Other people can know more about your height, and your weight, and the physical state of your brain, than you know. So if your mental states were just physical states of some sort, like neurophysiological states of your brain, then that would make your mental states all publicly accessible.
Other arguments for dualism are discussed here by philosopher Edward Feser
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-brief-arguments-for-dualism-part.html
First by the introspection argument
The Argument from Introspection
"A more universal consideration is the argument from introspection. The fact is, when you center your attention on the contents of your consciousness, you do not clearly apprehend a neural network pulsing with electrochemical activity: you apprehend a flux of thoughts, sensations, desires, and emotions. It seems that mental states and properties, as revealed in introspection, could hardly be more different from physical states and properties if they tried. The verdict of introspection, therefore, seems strongly on the side of some form of dualism"
Another argument for dualism is the premise that we have privileged access to our mental states.
the premise that you have a special ways of knowing about your own mental states. This knowledge is not usually based on any evidence or observation. You can just tell that you're thinking about elephants. You don't have to infer it from any evidence. But other people do have to infer what you're thinking, from your behavior and from what you say. So you're in a better position to know what you're thinking than they are. You have a kind of special or privileged access to your mental states which other people lack.
You don't have any privileged access of that sort to your height or weight or shoe size. In principle, other people could be in a better position to know your height than you are.
Most philosophers will agree that we do have some kind of privileged access to our own mental states, even if it is difficult to spell that claim out in detail.
But some philosophers go further and argue that the only way we can explain or account for this privileged access is if facts about your mind are facts about what's happening in some private non-physical realm. Physical objects and their physical properties, on the other hand, are all publicly accessible. Other people can know more about your height, and your weight, and the physical state of your brain, than you know. So if your mental states were just physical states of some sort, like neurophysiological states of your brain, then that would make your mental states all publicly accessible.
Other arguments for dualism are discussed here by philosopher Edward Feser
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2008/10/some-brief-arguments-for-dualism-part.html
Sunday, December 14, 2008
New Scientist Article Called Creationists Declare War On The Brain
The Whole article is one bad piece. Why? Well first anyone who disagrees with the mainsteam science view that mind is produce by the brain are classified as creationists. Also it also puts intelligent design in the same way of thinking as creationism. But creationism is different then intelligent design. How? Well creationism relies on a bible as it's evidence. Where intelligent design relies on two facts that no scientist's denies.
1] Biological animals are intelligent
2] Their is design in evolution
Now biologists say they admit both of those things. But it's like biologists who are devoted to naturalism appear not very happy that those two things are facts. Also it's true that a lot of christians have used intelligent design to get their case across. I personally don't like that christians have hijacked intelligent design.
Here's what Patricia Churchland says in the article
Patricia Churchland, a philosopher of neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego, "it is an argument from ignorance. The fact something isn't currently explained doesn't mean it will never be explained or that we need to completely change not only our neuroscience but our physics."
But that's not what dualists are saying. Postulating that mind is seperate from the brain, that the brain is a filter of consciousness is an alternative that should be taken seriously.
Here's another piece from the article.
Schwartz and others argue that since the mind can change the brain, the mind must be something other than the brain, something non-material. In fact, these experiments are entirely consistent with mainstream neurology - the material brain is changing the material brain.
Consistent?. True it's consistent if you preconceive that the brain is doing the changing itself without a soul.
The deathblow to materialism is the fact that we have an inner life. How do emergent systems give rise to an inner life?. Of course they don't. Also their's another way out for materialism by positioning epiphenomenalism. The big problem with this is we know we have conscious experiences but it says consciousness is an illusion.
1] Biological animals are intelligent
2] Their is design in evolution
Now biologists say they admit both of those things. But it's like biologists who are devoted to naturalism appear not very happy that those two things are facts. Also it's true that a lot of christians have used intelligent design to get their case across. I personally don't like that christians have hijacked intelligent design.
Here's what Patricia Churchland says in the article
Patricia Churchland, a philosopher of neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego, "it is an argument from ignorance. The fact something isn't currently explained doesn't mean it will never be explained or that we need to completely change not only our neuroscience but our physics."
But that's not what dualists are saying. Postulating that mind is seperate from the brain, that the brain is a filter of consciousness is an alternative that should be taken seriously.
Here's another piece from the article.
Schwartz and others argue that since the mind can change the brain, the mind must be something other than the brain, something non-material. In fact, these experiments are entirely consistent with mainstream neurology - the material brain is changing the material brain.
Consistent?. True it's consistent if you preconceive that the brain is doing the changing itself without a soul.
The deathblow to materialism is the fact that we have an inner life. How do emergent systems give rise to an inner life?. Of course they don't. Also their's another way out for materialism by positioning epiphenomenalism. The big problem with this is we know we have conscious experiences but it says consciousness is an illusion.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Questions And Answers On The Transmission Theory Of Mind And Brain
1) Do you have an explanation for the process of the detachment and reattachment of a non-physical mind to a body?
2) What is a non-physical mind composed of?
3) Where are all the non-attached minds right now?
4) What powers it when it is not attached to a body?
5) What is it transmitting to brain? If thoughts, how are the thoughts generated and how do the thoughts travel to the brain?
6) What keeps a mind individually cohesive (not dissipating into whatever medium it dwells within) when not in a body?
7) Why are minds proposed to be unaffected by entropy?
8) Have the number of minds increased, as the number of brains have over the centuries?
What i think powers the soul is a medium of some kind.
As far as the question with have the numbers of minds increased. I would say yes slightly but reincarnation halts the process.
They travel to the brain like how a tv works, only the brain is a complex tv.
The non-attached minds are in other realities.
That is the thing We don't know if the soul continues forever. It may not it really depends. What perserves you is the process of other lifes on this planet. Past lives.
2) What is a non-physical mind composed of?
3) Where are all the non-attached minds right now?
4) What powers it when it is not attached to a body?
5) What is it transmitting to brain? If thoughts, how are the thoughts generated and how do the thoughts travel to the brain?
6) What keeps a mind individually cohesive (not dissipating into whatever medium it dwells within) when not in a body?
7) Why are minds proposed to be unaffected by entropy?
8) Have the number of minds increased, as the number of brains have over the centuries?
What i think powers the soul is a medium of some kind.
As far as the question with have the numbers of minds increased. I would say yes slightly but reincarnation halts the process.
They travel to the brain like how a tv works, only the brain is a complex tv.
The non-attached minds are in other realities.
That is the thing We don't know if the soul continues forever. It may not it really depends. What perserves you is the process of other lifes on this planet. Past lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)