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?
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
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.
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 (http://www.amazon.com/Out-Our-Heads-Lessons-Consciousness/dp/0809016486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268854423&sr=1-1)
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
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 :)
I have sometimes wondered what John locke would have made of computers.
Computers are to philosophy what cigarettes are to gastronomy.
Quote from: Sandy on March 17, 2010, 12:36:28 PMThe 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.
Quote from: Hikari on March 17, 2010, 01:24:20 PMIn 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.)
Quote from: lisagurl on March 17, 2010, 02:34:53 PM
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 (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?
Quoteit 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?
Quote from: brainiac on March 17, 2010, 04:31:53 PM
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
Quote from: lisagurl on March 17, 2010, 04:46:00 PM
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 (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
Quote from: Sandy on March 17, 2010, 04:52:16 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.
Quote from: brainiac on March 17, 2010, 04:55:13 PM
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 (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
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 (http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/85/5/2034)
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.
QuoteAs 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.
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. :P
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 (http://www.global-mindshift.com/discover/Memebase/The%20American%20Scholar%20-%20A%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Universe%20-%20By%20Robert%20Lanza.pdf)
Quote from: FairyGirl on March 17, 2010, 10:42:43 PM
http://www.global-mindshift.com/discover/Memebase/The%20American%20Scholar%20-%20A%20New%20Theory%20of%20the%20Universe%20-%20By%20Robert%20Lanza.pdf (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.
Quote from: FairyGirl on March 17, 2010, 10:42:43 PM
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 (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
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: lisagurl on March 18, 2010, 12:03:59 PM
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.
I'm not sure we're at odds here. I think it's really a matter of semantics and what each of us mean by color and noise.
Say there was an alien who had a sense that resembles our sense of smell, except it takes in wavelengths of light instead of particles of stuff. When we see red, it smells something. Which part is "redness"? Is it the wavelengths that we interpret as red, or our subjective experience of it?
What I think is that while there is an "objective reality" that we all share, we can never actually know it, since it has to be filtered through our flawed, economical brains first. There's a lot of stuff in perception where our brains create illusions to make sense of the world that USUALLY work, but in certain situations break down. I could dig up examples if you're interested.
QuoteI think it's really a matter of semantics and what each of us mean by color and noise.
Not a matter of semantics but what is real and what you perceive as real. The world does not revolve around humans either does the universe. There is a reality out there that effects our mind and what we perceive. Ever here of the butterfly effect? We may think that our personal reality is not part of the universe and it us all in our heads but our life extends outside our heads into all that we are not even aware of. To only look into our brains is a grave error on the part of neuroscientists they are missing the whole picture and will sometime in the future realize their mistake. Reductionist or not Alva Noe is a professor at Berkeley perhaps you need to acquainted with his work such as in the book " Action in Perception"
I would like to show a little story. A story of how life might have evolved on this planet we call home.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg#)
This story may seem not have anything to say about consciousness and its role, but it does in an important context of the definition of consciousness: awareness of one's environment (of one's self comes later as full sentience). The modern analogs to the prototypes have unique features that relate to the idea of consciousness. These features are sensitivity to light and the cytoskeleton.
To explain, photosensitivity evolved in a hostile environment in which the atmosphere of the ancient Earth had no ozone layer to protect life from the ionizing effects of ultraviolet radiation. But the same life still depended upon the use of the energy of the Sun to survive (along with the use of geothermal energy of volcanic vents). So, a compromise resulted: a cell would float in just the right depth of water that allowed for light to penetrate to aside metabolism but not too shallow otherwise it would be killed and not too deep or it would starve to death. Simply put, this mechanism allowed even a simple single celled organism to be aware of its environment and to behave in a complex manner unlike its prototype ancestors as shown in the demonstration video link. In fact, the very genes related to photosensitivity are found in the majority of life on the planet and as a result is the basis of eye sight in every animal on Earth. A simple adaptation with no nervous system, no neurons, and no memory allowed for a cell to behave intelligently.
Another example is the cytoskeleton. This structure is unique in the fact that its obvious role is to support the weight and shape of a cell's wall. But what is not obvious is two other features. First, its role as a 'highway' of sorts for molecules in the cell, which allow for more efficient and fast use of molecules in the life cycle of a cell. Second, the natural composition of such a cytoskeleton results in the same behavior found in carbon nanotubes: conductivity. What this second feature of the cytoskeleton results in the ability of a cell to 'know' where its being touched by another cell or natural barrier in the environment. That means a cell which could be equiped with a flagella could know exactly what side of its is being touched and where to go as to not be touched (as to not be eaten/killed). This particular feature of the cytoskeleton results in another hint or clue as to the nature of consciousness; that it is partly a reactionary function of a living thing.
But this story gets more complex as you begin to move through natural history to animals. You will begin to find animals that develop the ability to have memory as speciation doesn't result often enough to make 'better' (more efficient) adaptations for a given species or set of species to survive in its environment. Memory could be classed as an adaptation, but I would hazard against such a classification because the addition of any complexity in an organism means that organism has to sustain the costs of that complexity whether times are fat or thin. A simple nervous system can still be a metabolic cost that is too high for some niches and as a result it's obvious why it has taken as long as it has for it to appear.
Furthermore, when one progresses through natural history even further to our times one begins to see lifeforms with brains similar to modern ones which have the ability to sort memories and adjust them. These brains appear simple, but in contrast to an animal with a simple nervous system its features are a magnitude greater in complexity. But now move even further forward in natural history and look at the different species that evolve even more to use these brains for other purposes: socialization. The ability to develop hierarchy in a social group for an animal is quite advantageous as it allows for a division of labor not seen as evident until modern industrialization. Whether it's the primates (humans), canines (wolves), or some other class of animal one can see that socialization in groups and the development of hiearchy allowed for these animals to survive better with less resources in a single area.
Ultimately, this is when the very concept of self-awareness or self-consciousness begins to appear and the very story that started with very simple chemistry and physics allows for the emergence of the ability to self-shape/determine. The point is that consciousness is an emergent property that exists in parallel to evolution as neither evolution nor consciousness seem to have any common ground beyond the accidental advantages resulting from consciousness in its orders of magnitude of utility for a given species. At the same time it can be said that consciousness is inevitable for all life forms at least in terms of adaptation, but I can't hazard that as the majority of the biomass of all life on Earth is outweighed by the single celled organisms by a wide margin. Thus, I don't believe in any sort of bio-determinism for consciousness.
DNA is an instruction manual found in all living things. Where did it come from?
Quote from: lisagurl on March 20, 2010, 03:29:59 PM
DNA is an instruction manual found in all living things. Where did it come from?
It emerged from the monomers over many generations. In fact, that's the point of the linked video. It shows that you can get to DNA without going directly to something like RNA. You can just start with simple biochemistry to get the building blocks required. If you go to the youtube page of the video it references that this has been shown to operate in a laboratory, apparently.
Quoteit references that this has been shown to operate in a laboratory, apparently
You need to do more research the jury is still out on that one. I would not take any video as truth. Books from reputable publishers with plenty of foot notes and backup evidence would be required to even start a processes of accepting information. The web is mostly propaganda and spin.
Well... I think I'm thoroughly lost at this point.
Well... I think I'm thoroughly lost at this point.
Me too. I think I'm just going to sit in the corner and play with my colored pencils or something. Reminds me that I stopped hanging out with people who were tripping balls on acid so I could avoid conversations like this.
Quote from: lisagurl on March 20, 2010, 05:28:16 PM
You need to do more research the jury is still out on that one. I would not take any video as truth. Books from reputable publishers with plenty of foot notes and backup evidence would be required to even start a processes of accepting information. The web is mostly propaganda and spin.
It's in reference to the work of a scientist at Harvard Medical. You can try to say his work is invalid, but sorry I'm not going to lean your way nor is any science based on consensus. Consensus is just the cherry on top of a valid theory.
Quote from: tekla on March 21, 2010, 11:43:26 AM
Well... I think I'm thoroughly lost at this point.
Me too. I think I'm just going to sit in the corner and play with my colored pencils or something. Reminds me that I stopped hanging out with people who were tripping balls on acid so I could avoid conversations like this.
Lol :)
All I know is this whole thing is very simple to understand if you know fairy magic :P.
this whole thing is very simple to understand if you know fairy magic
Which would be the second set of conversations that stopped me from hanging out with acid heads.
Quote from: tekla on March 22, 2010, 10:59:40 AM
this whole thing is very simple to understand if you know fairy magic
Which would be the second set of conversations that stopped me from hanging out with acid heads.
:P
Dewd, enough about how the color red looks, let's talk about how it
sounds.
and how blue really tastes, and how yellow feels, and, oh, look, shiny things!
Does this mean we can talk about synesthesia now?
Yeah sure. I'll try to dig out of my little mind what it was like the last time I really did real, pure LSD and was sitting on subwoofer with my back against the mains while Gov't Mule played Cortez the Killer and Warren's guitar playing was an electric ride on a blazing rollercoaster of color, where each note had it's own hue, each chord it's own spectrum.
That's kind of poetic.
It was a pretty good night as I recall. Bernie Worrell (Funkadelic) was on organ which was a real treat. The Wish You Were Here, Soulshine (my favorite), The Mule, Thorazine Shuffle, and War Pigs were pretty epic too.
Gov't Mule was really big in the south. I saw them at several music festivals back in the days.
Er, I know that's sort of a digression from the original subject, but peeps were digressing when they were trying to stay on topic in this thread so I don't feel that bad =P. Besides, we're having a discussion and this is where it lead, therefore it is on topic ...obviously ;).
PS- There's nothing dirtier than a Georgia hippie.
PS- There's nothing dirtier than a Georgia hippie.
Oh, you ought to see our local variety. Though most of them come from somewhere else, like New York, or... Georgia.
And back to the topic, I've never seen a mind function without a body - though Steven Hawkins might come close - but just reading through the Free Republic today makes me think there are a lot of bodies without functioning minds.
Quote from: Sandy on March 18, 2010, 07:05:19 AM
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
Just as Dr. Lanza postulates that no physical "Theory of Everything" can be complete without taking consciousness into account, so can no theory attempting to solve the mind/body problem be complete without taking into account quantum physics. The seat of consciousness may very well be finally interpreted at the physical quantum level. I'm not naive enough to think that it won't, but it's interesting to get another scientific point of view (I'm not sure how closely pseudo-scientific sensationalist pablum such as Wu Li Masters fits that criterion, but it's not a fair comparison in any case) before dismissing any viable theory out of hand. I have no doubt that science will at some point find a direct physical correlation between the wetware and our consciousnesses; that is after all how this reality works. That still doesn't seem a convincing argument against consciousness being primary to me, being all Taoist as I am and all. :)
Quote from: lisagurl on March 17, 2010, 02:34:53 PM
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 (http://www.amazon.com/Out-Our-Heads-Lessons-Consciousness/dp/0809016486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268854423&sr=1-1)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090316201459.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090316201459.htm)
Okay on the whole QM thing with regard to consciousness, lets not get too off the deep end. The reality is that according to certain interpretations of the probablistic nature of QM means that observations are necessary for quantum states to collapse into classical states. The problem with this assumption is that it doesn't explain how the first non-conscious matter collapsed such that the given conscious matter then could arise to regulate the Known Universe. This problem leaves up too many things to either blind chance or a blind God (as it were). Thus, the answer to the problem isn't more complications of consciousness as primary (as this would require a justification that isn't part of even QM or any other theory right now). Equally, the primacy of consciousness conclusion has holes in it like the fact the Universe on the whole is very hostile to consciousness (the fact you can't undo your death is proof enough).
Furthermore, certain formulations of QM don't require consciousness for states to collapse. A theory of quantum gravity (which has yet to be proven) would do the trick. Another would be coherence, which has some experimental evidence (and it has a Hayekian flavor that is appealing to this poster). And possibly other theories that I'm not fully aware of at the moment which could destroy the narrative of consciousness and observer bias in QM.
I would suggest that the mind is what the brain does for a living, as this thread appears to have wandered a bit.
Quote from: FairyGirl on April 08, 2010, 03:31:08 PM
Just as Dr. Lanza postulates that no physical "Theory of Everything" can be complete without taking consciousness into account, so can no theory attempting to solve the mind/body problem be complete without taking into account quantum physics. The seat of consciousness may very well be finally interpreted at the physical quantum level. I'm not naive enough to think that it won't, but it's interesting to get another scientific point of view (I'm not sure how closely pseudo-scientific sensationalist pablum such as Wu Li Masters fits that criterion, but it's not a fair comparison in any case) before dismissing any viable theory out of hand. I have no doubt that science will at some point find a direct physical correlation between the wetware and our consciousnesses; that is after all how this reality works. That still doesn't seem a convincing argument against consciousness being primary to me, being all Taoist as I am and all. :)
I don't remember where I read it now, but there was an article I read that within the cells there are structures that were originally thought to be part of the scaffolding that supported the inner structure of the cell. These structures may perform that function, but their molecular structure appear to change slightly in response to quantum mechanical forces. The implied meaning is that we are somehow wired into the quantum nature of the universe at a cellular level. This has been passed over by other scientists as being a simple co-incidence and that the minute changes observed at the atomic level are vastly overwhelmed by other physical forces in the cell.
Dr. Fred Wolfe alluded to something similar to this in his book "Star Wave", but that book is about on the same footing as "The Dancing Wu Li Masters".
But you never know...
-Sandy
Quote from: justmeinoz on April 09, 2010, 09:06:20 AM
I would suggest that the mind is what the brain does for a living, as this thread appears to have wandered a bit.
Haha, I like that way of putting it. :)
For me, I take an Aristotelian/phenomenological point of view on the mind/consciousness. In Aristotle's "De Anima," he outlined his theory of soul (or rather consciousness) as function. The mind is a function, not a thing. For humans, our function is to think rationally.
From the phenomenological/existentialist perspective, consciousness/the mind is as Husserl called it an "eregnis," or clearing. Just like with Aristotle, it is not a thing. Consciousness is like a clearing in a forest, in order to perceive, there must be an emptiness.
Yes, and to aid the survivablity of the human species, the function of our minds are to use rational thought to discern actions that will determine whether we survive a situation or not.
Think of how vulnerable humans are on a purely physical level. We have weak, inefficient teeth. We don't really have claws. We don't have fur to defend ourselves from the cold. How is it that we have survived? It is by rational thought and cultural behaviours that themselves go through a kind of evolution that we are capable of surviving and dominating our environment.
Nope, it's through development and use of tools
And those tools were developed (discovered) by what? Oh, yeah, rational thought. And we have thrived - beyond survived - largely due to social and cultural developments, that again, were products of rational thought.
How can you say that when those very basic tools such as hand axes eventually turned into such things as spears and swords? As Einstein said, invention is 1% inspiration (i.e. accidental discovery) and 99% perspiration (rational thought and physical labor).
Chance only favors the prepared mind.
Quote from: ƃuıxǝʌ on July 06, 2010, 09:50:45 PM
I'd disagree with Einie; early invention was 1% inspiration and 99% desperation. No-one had the leisure time to sit around and muse on ideas - it was survive or die.
If it were true that early humans put no thought into improving their abilities at hunting and other life-sustaining activities, there would have had to have been a point at which rational thought would have had to have started playing a big part in human action. This is necessary in order to get to the modern day, where there is time to think rationally, as you argue.
I would say this point came when humanoids began to talk. Being able to talk led to all new possiblities to do such things as coordinate huntings plans and communicating how to make tools. It would have taken rational thought in order to replicate the building of the tools after the accidental discovery. This started, as the fossil record tells us, with homo habilis, long before the dawn of modern homo sapiens.
But there was a point when blind evolutionary luck turned into cultural practice. The dawn of culture began when humanoids learned to talk. I'm assuming you're making reference to when early bipeds became scavengers and learned to crack the bones of dead animals to get at the marrow inside, beginning our evolutionary ancestors consumption of meat which led to increased brain size. This happened even earlier than homo habilis, and needless to say was before homo sapiens. Trust me, I'm an anthropologist. I wouldn't have been able to get to my senior year of college if I didn't have my human evolution down straight. I know most of our history was blind luck. But the dawn of culture began a new kind of evolution, one that was faster than regular evolution a thousand fold.
Culture, as it relates to adaptation, is essentially a tool used by humans to come to a decision as to the best means to survive in a given situation. Part of this decision is rational thought. Also, although it often does not seem like it, cultural beliefs and practices follow a kind of logic. Although they appear in societies at random, those that give greater survivability to those who pracitice/hold them tend to persist, while those that result in death of those that practiced them die out. If rational thought played no role, people would continue to practice cultural norms until they themselves were extinct.
Also, regarding religion in a completely biological fashion, partaking in religion allows for greater longevity and ability to survive difficult times. As the psychiatrist Dr. Victor Frankl observed among those in Nazi concentration camps, those that had some meaning to their lives survived while those who did not perished. Religion provides this meaning for many people, be the religion true or not.
I meant complete extinction. If rational thought played no role, then our entire species would be extinct. And of course there are some examples of where good practices died out and bad practices survived. Although refined from evolutionary adaptation, cultural adaptation is still a messy process. But in general, cultural adaptation has sustained our species to the present, and part of cultural adaptation requires rational thought.
Because, as I said before, their physical defenses are much better than ours. We are essentially frail, hairless monkeys with no natural defenses. Our primate cousins are either far stronger or far more agile than we our. Animals have developed either instincts or physical defenses against predators and inclimate conditions. We humans have our big brains which allow us to think and strategize rationally.
And as I said before, those tools would not have come about if, through observation and rational thought, those first tools or any style of tools that came after them had not been replicated.
'Culture' is simply the evolution of memes - and it's not based on rationality
That's incorrect. In fact culture is often the answer to questions that were answered so well we've forgot what they were.
People DO practice cultural norms to extinction - Easter Island is a perfect example
Example of what? Do you have some facts as to what happened? There are several 'theories' (products of both rational, and in some cases, irrational minds) but no one knows. It could be, as it has been in several cases in the past including the Anasazi, that the society and culture were so successful that they outstripped the ability of the environment to sustain them. Then again, in both the Easter Island and Anasazi it could have been a changing climate. But to pretend like you know, well, its just silly.
But you have yet to show how such tools could have been replicated without rational thought. Sure, I can believe that the first flint tool was found by accident. But it takes methodic analyzation of how exactly that first tool came to be by early humans, which requires rational thought. Otherwise, those tools never would have been replicated.
99% desperation
You are projecting. Tool use - BTW not (NOT) unique to humans - the first time may well be a happy accident. Repeated usage and development, that's thought.
Yes, but not to the extent that humans do. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in implying that rational thought is unique to humans. I didn't mean to, but I can see how what I said could be interpreted as such. It is mostly that humans can think abstractly that separates us from animals. Yes a wasp can, by a combination of instinct and basic thought, use tools. However, like with apes, it is purely on an action-reward basis. Human beings, with our ability to think abstractly, can perform actions that our not immediately rewarded. Namely, coming up with hunting strategies and the creation of tools. People can create tools while other animals must depend on what is readily available.
And again, you have not mentioned any way that the first tools could have been recreated without rational thought.
Animals do not create tools. They use what is readily available in the environment. For example, chimpanzees use sticks laying around the jungle to get termites out of holes in their nests in order to eat them. That doesn't require much rational thought, if any. It does take rational thought to make tools consistently and, when they got complicated, to use them. To make and throw a spear, for example, takes rational thought at least when learning. Learning a technique, by definition, requires rational thought.
And like I said before, some animals are capable of very basic rational thought. Regarding the crows, its very hard to discern instinct from learned skill. Generally, we can tell by the fact that with tool use among primates, for example, they learn by seeing. Has anyone ever seen a British crow show another crow how to make a hook?
I would also say that apes are very close to humans and as such have very human-like behavior. There's even some evidence that they understand some basic language, although as I said before, it's generally action-reward based. It would make sense that apes have some dim sense of rational thought.
Finally, these are very rare examples. General rules are just that: general. But by and large for the mass majority, they hold up. I imagine that you had to do a decent bit of research to come up with those two cases.
Edit: The same rule with apes holds up with the Capuchins
Haha, oddly enough, it was that the mind isn't a thing, it's a function. Of course, be it survival or rational thought, the mind would still be a function. Of course, calling Aristotle's "function" a purpose is a bit of a misnomer (philosophers use words any way they damn well please :D). For example, the function of plants is to gain nutrition. The function of non-human animals is to perceive. It's simply the "what it is to be" a certain creature.
Anyway, I need to go to bed. I have a therapy appointment in the afternoon, and if I don't get my twelve hours of sleep I get cranky :). We can continue the discussion tomorrow, if you'd like.
Quote from: Anthrogal on July 06, 2010, 11:11:05 PM
Animals do not create tools.
Certain types of birds have been noted to remove branches from small sticks to make the sticks into the shape necessary to dig bugs out of trees. This is certainly a type of rational thought. It means that the bird must know the shape of the stick it needs in advance, and know how to break the twig to make that shape. This requires the ability to hold a visual concept in the mind and apply the mind to recreate it in the physical environment.
It's not a heli-crane, but it is still a tool which requires craftsmanship.
Again, distinguishing skill from instinct is hard to do. Unless there's evidence that these birds actually watch skilled birds and learn that way, I stand by my statement.
Quote from: Anthrogal on July 13, 2010, 04:25:40 PM
Again, distinguishing skill from instinct is hard to do. Unless there's evidence that these birds actually watch skilled birds and learn that way, I stand by my statement.
I don't follow. The ability to use and particularly to create tools necessitates abstract thought. Whether that thought is learned or instinctual is less relevant to the fact that it exists.
It would also seem that flying south for the winter requires abstract thought as well. Seemingly "knowing" that going south means warmer weather and more plentiful food would be abstract, if birds actually used rational thought to come to that decision. However, they do not, this is instinct. So too, I argue, is it with tool making. Pretty much the only way that rational thought can be proved in this case, is if it is proven that birds can analyze the creation of this tool and teach it to other birds. Until you present that proof, my argument stands.
I would say yes of course the brain is the source of consciousness. However, the functions of the brain give rise to more than just firing neurons, it gives rise to complex systems and effects that are more than just their physical source. Take a computer, for instance. The most basic part of a computer is the mechanism that makes a byte turn on or turn off (binary). This gives rise to all sorts of things, such as calculations, visual output, etc.
With the brain, it is even more so. It has the same function as bytes in a computer (for a neuron to fire or not to fire), yet it is capable of consciousness, something absolutely amazing that has not been copied by any computer yet.
Part of consciousness, though, has to involve what Sartre called neantation or nihlation. It must be, as I mentioned before, a clearing or eregnis. Otherwise, matter would be indistinguishable from consciousness, and we would only be able concern ourselves with what exists in the moment, and be incapable of imagination.
Imagination requires, as Sartre said, a double nihlation. First, it must withdraw from the world (hence needing something that is separate from matter) and then taking an object that is not, and imagining a world in which it exists. This is imagination, at least, in its most basic form. I would say that the higher processes of consciousness come about from the basic physical actions of neurons, creating a sort of metaphysical essence that is consciousness. Consciousness must "be in the world," but not "in the midst of the world," otherwise it would be undistinguishable from matter.
somewhere near reality
Good luck finding people with that address in a thread like this.
I'm not saying that it still does not need the brain to function. I'm saying consciousness must be metaphysical in order to function as well. It's a higher function, but still dependent on the basic physical functions of the brain.
Metaphysical doesn't necessarily mean spiritual. In fact, there are probably as many definitions of metaphysics as there are philosophers. All it comes from is the ordering of Aristotle's works. Metaphysics literally means, in greek, "after physics," as it came, wait for it, right after the book Physics.
Just like a computer is more than just its physical parts (one could say there is a metaphysical part of a computer, that being it's ability to calculate math problems, for example) When I say metaphysical, all I mean is that, as you said, it is an emergent physical phenomenon. I think we are saying the same thing, really, just different vocabulary. It is just that the on/off binary of neurons leads to the creation of consciousness, something that is not visible by just observing the neurons' activity.
You mean we've actually seen consciousness (something I don't know how that would be accomplished), or that scientists have seen neurons firing that lead to consciousness?
QuoteThus there is no question that our mind is but a product of our brain.
The mind could not exist without the world around it.
By the same token, the "world" would not exist without consciousness. There would only be undifferentiated being. While it is true that consciousness did not create the objects in the world, it is necessary that the objects in space become objects in thought in order for the world to truly "exist."
But you are absoluterly right. Consciousness is directive and needs to be conscious of objects in the world ("there is consiousness of a chair"), and without objects to direct it, consciousness would not exist.
Honey, get a grip. The world, or universe existed with out you (perfectly fine by the way) for what, a few billions years? And, (in what the to universe is a mere blink of the eye) you're going to be gone, and it's going to keep on going. It does not depend on you AT ALL. If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound if no one hears it? Sure, because that sound depends on physics, not you.
You misunderstood what I am saying. The universe has of course existed before consciousness. However, for the "world," as defined by Sartre, to exist, there must be consciousness. By "world," I mean the conceptualization of outer existence. The universe before consciousness is undifferentiated being.
Sartre isn't worth of licking the sweat off my balls. Really. A third rate philosopher, and even worse, a fourth rate writer (though I'm willing to entertain any suggestion that you can't really translate French - a Romance Language - into English - a Modern Language - without butchering the entire deal). Still, even if the writing suffers from translation, there is no escaping the nihilism of his vapid world view.
Quote from: tekla on July 17, 2010, 12:09:57 AM
Still, even if the writing suffers from translation, there is no escaping the nihilism of his vapid world view.
"To be is to do"-Socrates;
"To do is to be"-Sartre;
"Do Be Do Be Do"-Sinatra;
"Scooby Dooby Do"-Scooby Do;
"Yaba Daba Doo!"-Fred Flintstone
All the great philosophers are doin' it...
-Sandy
QuoteBy the same token, the "world" would not exist without consciousness.
But the world would exist without humans, it has and will. It is just that it would not have a label of world.
Consciousness is not inherently human either.
However, we have no real proof that all this isn't just made up in our heads. The world that is; that it's not just some sort of 'fake' world. Truth is, it doesn't matter if it is or not. If we were all just TV characters or video game characters, would that make us less real? Does that make the world that we would live in less real than someone else's world? Would it make our problems less genuine if it were true? Of course not. I'm not suggesting that we treat a TV character's life as fact for fact for our lives, but the world we live in is important because we perceive it to be real. It doesn't matter if it is or is not, because we're living in it. We are conscious to it.
Consciousness is important, whether you believe it existed before humans or not.
Quote from: tekla on July 17, 2010, 12:09:57 AM
Sartre isn't worth of licking the sweat off my balls. Really. A third rate philosopher, and even worse, a fourth rate writer.
agreed
Personally I think some of you may accept the literal existence of reality, and indeed trees, far too easily.
Because we all exist within a closed system, namely our own consciousness we have no objective way to measure the validity of anything presented to us by the organ of that consciousness. We simply can not objectively observe a system when we ourselves are a subjective component within the system that we attempt to observe, or indeed are the entire system itself.
Your whole life may be merely a story that you yourself are authoring and the only reason that you believe in reality maybe because it is necessary for the internal logic of that story, that you do so.
In my world, but perhaps not yours, it follows that though discussions like this may be fun to follow, they are ultimately meaningless, except as amusing plot diversions.
QuoteIt doesn't matter if it is or is not, because we're living in it. We are conscious to it.
Yes it does matter and it matters very much. Life and your experience are not the most important thing, goodness and virtue are. Without them life is a waste.
Quote from: rejennyrated on July 27, 2010, 02:05:42 AM
Your whole life may be merely a story that you yourself are authoring and the only reason that you believe in reality maybe because it is necessary for the internal logic of that story, that you do so.
But the fact remains that if I punch you in the face, it will still hurt.
Objective proof isn't necessary to justify the probability that the body is not just an aspect of the mind. If anyone is entirely convinced that nothing exists outside the mind, then I challenge them to not feel pain when I punch them with my full strength.. If pain and injury really only exist in the mind, then it should be very simple to not experience such things. The fact that everybody does experience such things is sufficient evidence to suggest that the world isn't just something they dreamed up.
Sorry to bust everyone's quantum new age bubble. The fact remains that existentialism has failed to render science useless.
Does does punching solipsists have to be to prove a point? :P Just kidding.
heart-mind? everything is connected, this just reminds me, maybe it was all just split out and scattered and that was what was missing, in that case this truly would be that place, funny that... because... when it all comes together, i mean logically that makes sense, and thats what seems to have happened, shiva and shakti, and beyond that even to grounds of even more resolute and subtle ecstasy, i stretch, move around, i feel like i'
ve been bogged down, by so many things, moving, i realize things, where am i
? theres no one really out there, but flo is there and thats comforting, it is realer , truer... like cows wandering pastures of forever, eating potatoes
i don't understand, this concept people can seem so distant but is mind ultimately its own realm and body its own realm and they are all realms
that primal ness which is there equally... sometimes i look into the light
i saw wow that is some birght light or i just see colors, everything is very beautiful