Mind / Brain

[Baalzebutt]

It has been argued here by certain member that the mind and brain are separate entities. While no proof of this exists, and all current evidence points to the fact that the mind and brain are indeed inextricably linked as a physical function, there are those who continue to put forth the idea they are separate, ostensibly to give credence to the existence of a soul.

In thinking over this concept, one must ask for the obvious proof: a provable mind in the absence of a brain.

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 the brain has nothing to do with the mind, why can the mind be altered significantly by changes in the brain ranging from drug therapy to severe brain damage?

Aside from supporting the idea of a soul, what possible benefit would there be from a a separation of mind and brain?

This is a topic of great interest to me and I would like to hear what you have to say about it.

[Whateverist]

It has been argued here by certain member that the mind and brain are separate entities.

To cite a philosopher that is sure to bring down the wrath of Apo .. John Searle likens the difference between "brain" and "mind" to the difference between the "stomach" (or G. I. tract) and "digestion". The first is the organ(s) in the body which supports the second which is a bodily process. That is a pretty down to earth suggestion which at least seems true as far as it goes. Does that mean no other means can ever be devised to support the processes of the mind besides a brain? No, but chances are if such a means is ever found it will most likely be someone with an embodied brain that finds it. Likewise digestion could probably be accomplished by some other means than the G. I. tract. Of the two, the problem of supporting mind processes without a brain seems the more daunting problem.

[Angrboda]

I'll let Chad address the bulk of this, if he so chooses.

I'll simply point out that since the physicalist explanation of consciousness has yet to be demonstrated, and non-physicalist models can (in theory) be made to comport equally as well with the evidence, it's therefore inappropriate to assert that the non-physicalist bears the burden of proof disproportionately. I'm not current on the science, but my impression is that physicalism still lacks a model which would account for the various properties and aspects of consciousness, so attempting to thrust the question all on the non-physicalist side is inappropriate. (One simply has to note that your question implies that the brain is responsible for consciousness, such that consciousness in the absence of a brain would be an inexplicable fact. This seems to be begging the question.)

Anyway, I know it's fashionable to assert things like the mind and the brain are one, but simply speaking, we have a ways yet to go before we have anything like satisfactory answers to these questions (specifically regarding consciousness). In the words of a fellow philosopher, the field of neuroscience is "awash in data," but has no unifying explanations. This was much the opinion I had upon reading the first half of Antonio Damasio's Self Comes To Mind; Damasio, for all his knowledge of the subject, was still searching for a model which explains the data. And in the absence of a model of how the brain results in the phenomenon of consciousness, it's premature to claim we know the brain is responsible. That's as bad as the sellers of magnetic bracelets claiming they improve your health without having an actual mechanism to explain how they work.

I notice you ask additional questions about the benefits of non-physical mind. Aside from being an argument from consequences, I suppose the same utility as any fact of reality potentially has.

[Whateverist]

And in the absence of a model of how the brain results in the phenomenon of consciousness, it's premature to claim we know the brain is responsible.

That seems to go a bit too far. Don't we think that other animals besides ourselves are possessed of consciousness? As we look at its relatively primitive expression in worms and on up the line through reptiles to other mammals and ourselves, don't all indications point to the brain or some less differentiated neural material as the source of that phenomena? What really is the alternative? When you look at the kinds of disabilities suffered by people with various brain injuries, doesn't that point to it being the organ responsible for consciousness? Proof? I got none. But I don't find anywhere near as compelling evidence for supposing the mind as we currently know it does not arise through the activity of the brain.

[Baalzebutt]

I have to agree with Whateverist. At this point in time, the evidence we have strongly supports the notion that the brain is responsible for consciousness, even in the absence of a cohesive model.

While I am open to the idea of some other explanation for conciousness, it just seems a bit...I don't know...metaphysical and supernatural to suggest the it results from something other than biological processes. It has been argued ad nauseum here on the forums that there is zero evidence for ANYTHING that falls into the metaphysical or supernatural catagories.

As with the existence of a supreme being, I am open to the idea that there are possibilities I (and others) have yet to think of, but I tend to try to keep those things I believe without necessarily having a good reason, at least somewhat resasonable. In other words, if I don't have evidence, I try to conform a belief related to other known and related eveidence. In this case, the evidence is that the things we see in our physical world are the result of physical things. Hence, the mind is a product of the brain.

[Anomalocaris]

I'll let Chad address the bulk of this, if he so chooses.

I'll simply point out that since the physicalist explanation of consciousness has yet to be demonstrated, and non-physicalist models can (in theory) be made to comport equally as well with the evidence,

Correlation between the observable physical working order of the brain and evidence of consciousness is well established. While correlation is not causation, causation must perforce exhibit correlation. So the physicalists have the necessary, but insufficient, evidence to clinch their case.

The non-physicalists have no variafiable correlation, thus no evidence whatsoever.

So it is therefore entirely appropriate to assert that the non-physicalist bears the additional burden of catching up to the point of having necessary, if insufficient, evidence.

[Angrboda]

In this case, the evidence is that the things we see in our physical world are the result of physical things. Hence, the mind is a product of the brain.

Oh? So you're claiming to actually have seen a mind? What did it look like? Was it black and white, or was it a specific color?

Look, I think there's reasonable justification for believing that the mind is a result of physical processes, and as noted elsewhere, I have a model which I believe can explain consciousness in terms of material processes. However, independent of an actual model of the mechanism, you have the case where X and Y appear to go together, but not that X causes Y; without a model to ground a causal explanation, then all you have is correlation, and correlation does not imply causation. This is especially true when we have theories which appeal to currently not understood physical and biological mechanisms (such as microtubules and Crick's resonance hypothesis). If either of those is the case, claiming the brain causes consciousness would be flat out wrong, because by "brain," you mean the understood processes of neurons and neural networks. I think both of you are invalidly concluding more than the evidence allows.

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.)

And I'm quite familiar with much of the neuroscientific evidence, thank you very much.

[Baalzebutt]

In this case, the evidence is that the things we see in our physical world are the result of physical things. Hence, the mind is a product of the brain.

Oh? So you're claiming to actually have seen a mind? What did it look like? Was it black and white, or was it a specific color?

I am claiming the brain is the physical and the mind is the result as with the argument of the stomach being the physical and digestion being the result.

And, yes, the mind is observerable, at least indirectly. We see it as intelligence, personality and all the other things we associate with consciousness. And would have to say it is quite colorful!!!

[Angrboda]

Correlation between the observable physical working order of the brain and evidence of consciousness is well established. While correlation is not causation, causation must perforce exhibit correlation. So the physicalists have the necessary, but insufficient, evidence to clinch their case.

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.

---

I am claiming the brain is the physical and the mind is the result as with the argument of the stomach being the physical and digestion being the result.

And, yes, the mind is observerable, at least indirectly. We see it as intelligence, personality and all the other things we associate with consciousness. And would have to say it is quite colorful!!!

That and six bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[Baalzebutt]

That and six bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Of course you are right but the point of this thread really was not to PROVE the connection behind mind/brain so much as it was to lay out the concepts as I see them and to draw a conclusion form that evidence. Even you would have to agree that all of the current evidence certainly makes it look as though mind and brain are one and the same, would you not? I mean, looking strictly at what we know right now, it is a reasonable assumption.

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.