(March 14, 2013 at 4:30 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: By way of comparison, early religion looked at what they knew from the world around them and concluded "god". At the time, it was a reasonable assumption. So that's all I am saying about mind/brain. With current knowledge, it is reasonable to conclude they are one and the same.

So, you're arguing that because an analogous deduction was faulty, we should have confidence in this one? Not sure I follow your logic here, nor that I would agree that the situations are analogous. (Partly due to specific features of the respective problem spaces, and partly because it sounds to be coming from a position of ignorance concerning the history of various religions, and specifically the philosophical cultures surrounding them.) Moreover, we have better knowledge of the ways in which such reasoning can go wrong which are specifically applicable to this question, disregarding those "reasonable" ideas would make your conclusion other than that which is most reasonable; that would make your conclusion somewhat irrational and unreasonable.

(March 14, 2013 at 4:45 pm)apophenia Wrote:

(March 14, 2013 at 4:30 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: By way of comparison, early religion looked at what they knew from the world around them and concluded "god". At the time, it was a reasonable assumption. So that's all I am saying about mind/brain. With current knowledge, it is reasonable to conclude they are one and the same.

So, you're arguing that because an analogous deduction was faulty, we should have confidence in this one? Not sure I follow your logic here, nor that I would agree that the situations are analogous. (Partly due to specific features of the respective problem spaces, and partly because it sounds to be coming from a position of ignorance concerning the history of various religions, and specifically the philosophical cultures surrounding them.) Moreover, we have better knowledge of the ways in which such reasoning can go wrong which are specifically applicable to this question, disregarding those "reasonable" ideas would make your conclusion other than that which is most reasonable; that would make your conclusion somewhat irrational and unreasonable.

I am not necessarily arguing we should have confidence in it, simply that it is what currently makes sense. Think of it, if you will, as a premise from which to experiement and investigate.

You are correct in that I have little knowledge of religion and philosophical culture. The point I was trying to make is that, lacking a solid scientific theory, sometimes it is reasonable to make assumption based on the knowledge you have and incorporate or increase the knowledge with that assumption as a starting point.

I have to be honest with you, Apo. It frightens me to debate with you. Time and time again, you have shown a vast array of knowledge and understanding that sets you apart from virtually everyone else on this forum. You are intelligent in the extreme, a concise and witty debater and overall quite interesting. I love reading your posts but I don't want to be on the other side of them.

In a battle of ideas, you are a ICBM mounted nuclear device and I am a poorly crafted pellet gun.

(March 14, 2013 at 5:12 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: In a battle of ideas, you are a ICBM mounted nuclear device and I am a poorly crafted pellet gun.

Pallet guns survive their own wrath. Not so nuclear weapons.

---

(March 14, 2013 at 3:43 pm)apophenia Wrote: I was unaware that the specific neural correlates of consciousness had been demonstrated.

Please point me in the direction of more reading on the subject, I am most eager to learn.

Reported consciousness correlating to neurological activity propogating from frontal cortex to sensory areas of the brain:

Francis Crick and Christof Koch (2003). "A framework for consciousness" (PDF). Nature Neuroscience 6: 119–126. doi:10.1038/nn0203-119. PMID 12555104.

Specific deficits in awareness part of consciousness correlating to damages in superior temporal sulcus and the temporo-parietal junction:

Graziano, M.S.A. and Kastner, S (2011). "Human consciousness and its relationship to social neuroscience: A novel hypothesis". Cog. Neurosci 2: 98–113.

(March 14, 2013 at 3:27 pm)apophenia Wrote: And whateverist, I don't know what to make of your objection regarding animal consciousness other than that it's a red herring. Unless you can demonstrate that physical processes are the cause of any similar phenomenon in animals, pointing out more (hypothetical) examples of consciousness adds nothing. (And asking what the alternative explanation is or might be is an argument from ignorance and cuts no ice.)

I don't claim to have offered any evidence for thinking that mind processes arise from brains but I still think it is very reasonable to assume, as I suspect you do too. After all anyone who wishes to challenge my assumption that other people have subjective experience as robust as their own can make all the same objections. I can no more prove to them the existence of other minds than I can prove to you that the brain is the source of the mind. But I feel just as confident on both topics. The lack of evidence doesn't seem worrisome in either case.

(March 14, 2013 at 3:27 pm)apophenia Wrote: And I'm quite familiar with much of the neuroscientific evidence, thank you very much.

I have no doubt. But even with my lesser familiarity with that body of evidence I think I am entitled to refer to it. Surely you did not purchase the franchise?

Baalzebutt Wrote:However, there is another question that also comes to mind (so to speak): If the mind is indeed separate from the brain, then all minds (or souls, if you will) should be roughly equal in intellect and capacity, assuming, of course, the the "creator" of said minds wanted each to have an equal chance at salvation. If this is the case, why are there mentally retarded people? Why are there super-geniuses like Einstein and Hawking?

If we assume they are seperate entities, then I think it means people have varying degrees of intelligence depending on the different physical properties of the brain, which is the thing that enables them to "peek" into this universe. So it's like the brain is the vehicle for the mind, but if the vehicle is "damaged" or less capable in some way, then the mind won't be able to overcome that physical impairment.

I am about to embark on an experiment into the relationship between the mind and brain.
Now where is that chardonnay?


Anyhoo, I am of the opinion that the mind is the end product of a functioning brain, like shit is the end product of a colon.



With some people shit may also be the end product of their brain functioning.

(March 15, 2013 at 1:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: I am about to embark on an experiment into the relationship between the mind and brain.
Now where is that chardonnay?


Anyhoo, I am of the opinion that the mind is the end product of a functioning brain, like shit is the end product of a colon.



With some people shit may also be the end product of their brain functioning.

With some christians shit is their brain.

(March 15, 2013 at 2:49 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(March 15, 2013 at 1:49 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: With some people shit may also be the end product of their brain functioning.

With some christians shit is their brain.

It's hard to tell what's what given that their head is so far up their ass most of the time.