The mind-body problem.

[brainiac]

Is there a separation between mind and body?

As a neuroscientist, I fiercely cry out 'no'. Your brain is your mind. Things that affect your mind affect your brain and vice versa. Certainly, neuroscience (and cognitive science in particular) is a new field and there are still so many things that we don't know, and we're far from explaining everything about the mind in the terms of the brain-- electrical impulses, neurotransmitters, synapses--but we're getting there.

That doesn't mean that what the brain achieves is any less beautiful or even any less magical. Some people dismiss love as "just chemicals", but I feel like they're looking at it in the wrong way. The experience of any feeling is meaningful because we have it-- it doesn't make any difference that what's happening in your brain involves certain chemicals moving around into certain areas. There isn't a physical part and a mental part to a feeling, and one isn't caused by the other. They're the same thing, and every part of your experience involves a change in your brain!

So, I find it dismissive to separate the mind and the body. Your brain is fantastic--every one of you reading this  rewired and retrained your brain to be capable of doing so using areas that originally had other functions--so why cut off areas of study and say that some things are independent of the physical?

(I'm not strictly reductionist, either--culture and environment are extremely important, but it's because they affect your brain in very subtle ways that we can't explain with our current knowledge yet. I believe that we NEED different levels of analysis to understand humans: biological, neuroscientific, psychological, sociological, anthropological, philosophical...)

What's your opinion?

[Sandy]

I'm not a reductionist either, but it always struck me as being similar to computer-software.

The computer is not the software and the software is not the computer, but as a synthesis it achieves its goals.

Could the brain be considered the computer and the mind the software that "runs" on it?

-Sandy

[Hikari]

I believe that there isn't so much a separation, but that one in fact could exist. The way I see it, since the brain is a physical device that contains all of the information within it, then it could be copied into another device or even modified into another device all together.

Certainly this is beyond us, we don't understand how everything works, but for me it is a comforting idea, the idea that our minds have to be attached to these bodies (especially when you feel the body doesn't match you) is disconcerting.

In any case, using the analogy of software vs hardware, it seems that the software is more important, we can think changes in. People who become depressed can effect physical change in their brains from being depressed, even though studies suggest that antidepressants can reduce this damage or even reverse it, but they are not nearly as effective at actually curing the problem.

Carrying this analogy forward, on a PC the software can emulate different types of hardware. In effect with enough sophistication the actual type of hardware the software runs on becomes unimportant...Perhaps one day, it will become unimportant what hardware our mind is running on.

[lisagurl]

You have pigeonholed yourself to one type of thinking. The mind is also outside your body and brain. Try reading
"Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness" by Alva Noe
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Our-Heads-Lessons-Consciousness/dp/0809016486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268854423&sr=1-1

[Sandy]

While there have been some very interesting anecdotal documentation of incidents which might indicate that we are more than just "wires in a box" (remote viewing, touchless healing, past life recall), nothing has been successfully scientifically tested.

I myself have had "flashes of insight" that defied my explanation, but I must remain pragmatic on the subject until such time as we have a true scientific demonstration of these preternatural phenomenon.

-Sandy

[Hikari]

It might seem a little one dimensional but, I really do believe nothing is more than the sum of it's parts. I believe the brain, body, hormones, etc are merely the "platform" on which we run. I don't see anything magical, spiritual, etc about it.

Sure there are strange things, such as deja vu but, that is no more strange than an array in a Turbo Pascal program picking up some data it shouldn't have. I remember seeing just such a thing happen in a program I wrote, the program picked up the data before I had entered it. Magic? no. Strange? yes. A trace in debug (I hate ASM) showed me that I actually had already wrote the data where the array was with a pointer, and since a different part of the program occupied the same memory segment, not clearing the data between running different parts of the program had allowed the program to get data from the previous time the program had ran as apparently DOS never cleared the memory segment before it was used.

It was all very logical, and proper when you find out the method, but before understanding it, it would appear as if the program anticipated the data. We understand digital computers very well, we made them after all. All data we have on the brain is reverse engineered but, all data seems to me to point to a very complicated analogue platform that we currently do not fully understand.

Once we get to the point of understanding we can get to the point of emulation. That is what excites me (that and biological immortality, but that is another subject). I know it may seem a bit crude, not to see anything but, what is apparently there but I just cannot believe in what I cannot verify. Of course even if things like ESP were to be verified there are myriads of potential explanations, after all our brains and bodies do produce limited electrical-magnetic currents which may influence things outside of our body, but even then once we understood it, we could emulate it.

As with everything dealing with philosophy remember this is an opinion post

[spacial]

I have sometimes wondered what John locke would have made of computers.

Computers are to philosophy what cigarettes are to gastronomy.

[brainiac]

The computer is not the software and the software is not the computer, but as a synthesis it achieves its goals.

I see it a similar way, actually. The thing we call the mind is an emergent property of what our brain is doing. One affects the other, and they change together.

In any case, using the analogy of software vs hardware, it seems that the software is more important, we can think changes in. People who become depressed can effect physical change in their brains from being depressed, even though studies suggest that antidepressants can reduce this damage or even reverse it, but they are not nearly as effective at actually curing the problem.

Ahh, you're heading towards the inevitable (and pretty cool) discussion of AI that comes up when discussing philosophy of the mind.

Anyway, we definitely can think changes in. Like I said, every change in the mind is a change in the brain. And things like placebos make it very, very clear that "mental" changes can cause physiological ones. A professor I took a class with is researching placebos and things like hypnosis, where people can actually focus their attention so strongly that they can cause "bottom-up", low level processes to change as a result of higher level ones.

And about depression, the reason that medication doesn't cure everything is that the medication is way, way too broad to target the problem. For most people, a combination of medication and therapy helps them the most-- because you're tackling the SAME problem from different angles. (I hate it when people suggest that mental illnesses aren't "real" because it's hard to pinpoint a chemical cause... and when they claim they DO know exactly the chemical cause. But that's whole different can of worms.)

You have pigeonholed yourself to one type of thinking. The mind is also outside your body and brain. Try reading
"Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness" by Alva Noe
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Our-Heads-Lessons-Consciousness/dp/0809016486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268854423&sr=1-1

Hey now, I said I wasn't a reductionist. I actually have read something (and heard lectures) very similar, and I think it's a really cool point. However, I still believe it isn't actually outside your biology. It's there, it's just ridiculous to study at that level-- it makes much more sense to study at a social or philosophical level than a physiological one. To steal a quote from my professor, why study earthquakes at the level of particle physics?

[lisagurl]

it makes much more sense to study at a social or philosophical level than a physiological one.

How about blind spots in your eye or phantom limbs, pulling away from heat before you feel it. Or knowing what is on the backside of an object? Is the color red on the fire engine or in your head?

[Sandy]

Anyway, we definitely can think changes in. Like I said, every change in the mind is a change in the brain. And things like placebos make it very, very clear that "mental" changes can cause physiological ones. A professor I took a class with is researching placebos and things like hypnosis, where people can actually focus their attention so strongly that they can cause "bottom-up", low level processes to change as a result of higher level ones.

This too, however, may be an oversimplification.  Of course it is possible to "think" changes into the brain, and the placebo effect is an excellent example, but, it can only go so far.  For example, were it possible to think changes into the brain, then we could just think ourselves out of being transsexual.  Not quite.  I know, I've tried.

Also were that completely true the religious reich and the nurture over nature folks would be pointing to that and saying; "See!  It IS a choice!!!".

-Sandy

[brainiac]

How about blind spots in your eye or phantom limbs, pulling away from heat before you feel it. Or knowing what is on the backside of an object? Is the color red on the fire engine or in your head?

Oh, I meant that it makes sense that SOME things should be studied at a physiological level and some things should be studied at a social/environmental level, and hopefully we can integrate both.

As for the first part... We can explain those physiologically (or are at least close to it). There's actually some really interesting work on phantom limbs by this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran

As for the color red... in my opinion, you need someone to see it (or have a concept for it, for which they've had to see it) for it to be a color. "Red" is what your brain interprets a certain wavelength of light to be from the stimulus that comes in through your eye.
Post Merge: March 17, 2010, 05:05:43 PM

This too, however, may be an oversimplification.  Of course it is possible to "think" changes into the brain, and the placebo effect is an excellent example, but, it can only go so far.  For example, were it possible to think changes into the brain, then we could just think ourselves out of being transsexual.  Not quite.  I know, I've tried.

Also were that completely true the religious reich and the nurture over nature folks would be pointing to that and saying; "See!  It IS a choice!!!".

-Sandy

Ah, if only we could think EVERYTHING into being the way we wanted...

But that isn't quite what I meant. I meant that your thoughts are the result of/cause changes in your brain. We can't just say, "hey, I want to know Mandarin" and wish your brain into having the language structure of a Mandarin speaker's; I'd compare that to telling someone to think their way out of being transexual. While there are some really interesting "top down" effects that we can see on "bottom up" processes (like the placebo effect), that doesn't mean our power isn't REALLY limited.

And, well, I've actually seen research claiming that gender identity is correlated with the size of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis-- MTFs had a similar size to cisfemales, and the one FTM they tested had an even larger one than the cismales tested. But that's only one study-- as far as I know, there's a dearth of research on the topic since it's controversial.

[Sandy]

As for the first part... We can explain those physiologically (or are at least close to it). There's actually some really interesting work on phantom limbs by this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran

I have experienced the phantom limb phenomenon, but it wasn't a limb...

Really!  It took several weeks for me to stop feeling like I was sticking out.  A very odd sensation.

-Sandy

[Hikari]

IIRC the bed nucleus thing was from a Danish study, not a huge sample size but, decent science all the same without any bias that I could see. IIRC it also lent credence to sexual orientation and gender identity not having the same physical traits in the brain.

It is my understanding, that the brain is more "elastic" in some parts than others, there are parts that set in "concrete" as we develop. It seems likely that Sexual orientation and gender identity gets set either when we are very young or ever before we are born.

I have used my disciplined mind to become less demanding, to distance myself from my strong emotions, and get different personality traits. I certainly attempted to become untransgendered, I even have scars on my biceps from working out so much in a vain attempt at being 'manly'....

If I cannot do it, and I have some of strongest willpower I have heard of then I don't think it can be done. Which would mean that certain things can never be changed. I think of it kinda like firmware ROMs the software and hardware will always have to content with them.

In software we would refer to this as a 'platform limit' i.e. something that could only be overcome by either faking it or moving to another platform entirely. So long as we are human there are plenty of limits we much content with, if we could transcend that then awesome but, at current that doesn't look possible in my lifetime.

edit: Actually it was from the Netherlands I think here is a link to some stuff http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034

[brainiac]

Ooh, thanks for finding the study! I've been looking for it for ages. You're right, they did have a pretty small sample size, unfortunately, but it seems like their statistics are fine.

And yes, there is certainly much more neuroplasticity in some areas than others, and on different scales-- things generally aren't going to shift around as much in size and shape after your brain "solidifies" post-myelination and after puberty.

[lisagurl]

As for the color red... in my opinion, you need someone to see it (or have a concept for it,

So red does not exist without humans. Try again. A tree does not make noise when it falls if no one is there to hear it? LOL reality is more than in someone's head.

[brainiac]

I would say that the wavelength that to us represents the color red exists, yes, but "red" is a subjective experience. And no, a tree doesn't make a sound if no one is around to hear it, but it does make the air vibrate in such a way that would make a sound if it were processed by someone's ears.

This has to do with what we mean when we say "red" or "sound". For me, there is an objective definition and a subjective definition for each, and they should be distinguished.

And reality to that PERSON is what's in their head. Doesn't mean that's all of reality.

[FairyGirl]

Just to add another pov to the original premise, which I personally think is based on root assumptions that may or may not be provable in fact, such as the assumption that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the physical wetware and not the other way around-

This article from The American Scholar sums up my beliefs on this subject, far better than I could articulate them here, and I will humbly bow out of further discussion because honest to god these kind of debates make my head hurt... lol

http://www.global-mindshift.com/discover/Memebase/The%20American%20Scholar%20-%20A%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Universe%20-%20By%20Robert%20Lanza.pdf

[BunnyBee]

http://www.global-mindshift.com/discover/Memebase/The%20American%20Scholar%20-%20A%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Universe%20-%20By%20Robert%20Lanza.pdf

The only problem I have with this article is that it gives away too many secrets =P.

Many theoretical physicists are starting to come close to discovering the simple truths the paper laid out, in fact a few have said very similar things, but it seems the closer a physicist gets to the truth, the more likely it is that they will be rejected as a "non-scientist, practicing philosophy" by the scientific establishment.  And that's the thing, you can't prove the validity of any of these ideas with scientific tests, at least not fully. So this debate is necessarily moved to the category all faith-based musing goes: philosophy.

That does not make any of these ideas any less true though.  And if you ask me, besides the whole "I think therefore I am" thing, i.e. you know your own consciousness exists (in some form or another,) belief in the reality and/or truth of every single other thing in the whole darn Universe requires a leap of faith of some extent or another.

Yes, that includes even the most universally accepted scientific theories, in all their rigors, which the article that Chloe linked well proved- All may not be as it seems.

Anyway, it's downright creepy how close that article came to my own thoughts on the subject, even down to the minutiae.  Same train of thought, I guess.

[Sandy]

Just to add another pov to the original premise, which I personally think is based on root assumptions that may or may not be provable in fact, such as the assumption that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the physical wetware and not the other way around-

This article from The American Scholar sums up my beliefs on this subject, far better than I could articulate them here, and I will humbly bow out of further discussion because honest to god these kind of debates make my head hurt... lol

http://www.global-mindshift.com/discover/Memebase/The%20American%20Scholar%20-%20A%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Universe%20-%20By%20Robert%20Lanza.pdf

I wondered when we'd get to quantum physics and the anthropomorphic universe...

Who wants to present a book report on "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"?

-Sandy

[lisagurl]

And reality to that PERSON is what's in their head. Doesn't mean that's all of reality

But reality is not just what one experiences. Reality is the common bond of everything. Things have color and make noise if you experience them or not. Life does not end in your head. Life is more than just one person just as reality is more than one person.

So when you drop acid you make a reality that is common to everything. You need to learn the difference between imagination and reality.

Our brains are subject to everything around us as well as to any thing we touch and eat. That does not make a real reality only an artificial one based on input and imagination. Garbage in garbage out.