Modal Argument: The Mind is Not the Brain

[bennyboy]

That's a silly request. We don't actually have any way of KNOWING something/someone has a mind except by talking to them.

Yes, we do. Strap sensing electrodes to an animal. Poke him with a cattle prod once every 15 seconds but turn it on only every 5th poke or so. The anxiety rise between the fourth and fifth poke is evidence of a thinking mind. This test can be extrapolated and can measure various levels in complexity of thought. The more complex the pattern - the higher level of sentience.

Your definition of knowing there's a mind and mine are not the same. I could do the same to YOU and not know in an absolute sense that there is an actual mind there, rather than a philosophical zombie brain that BEHAVES aware but isn't. Basically, I have to start with solipsism, and then choose what assumptions I'm willing to make.

[Esquilax]

Your definition of knowing there's a mind and mine are not the same. I could do the same to YOU and not know in an absolute sense that there is an actual mind there, rather than a philosophical zombie brain that BEHAVES aware but isn't. Basically, I have to start with solipsism, and then choose what assumptions I'm willing to make.

Then the conversation is kind of over, since someone starting with the useless idea of solipsism can just move the goalposts back with another layer of reality-clouding obfuscation the moment anything is proved to them.

Moreover, it takes a special kind of contrarian to look at all the evidence distinctly for the idea of a mind, and then decide that rather than the natural conclusion being true, everything is just pretending like this is so, despite having absolutely no evidence of that.

[bennyboy]

Your definition of knowing there's a mind and mine are not the same. I could do the same to YOU and not know in an absolute sense that there is an actual mind there, rather than a philosophical zombie brain that BEHAVES aware but isn't. Basically, I have to start with solipsism, and then choose what assumptions I'm willing to make.

Then the conversation is kind of over, since someone starting with the useless idea of solipsism can just move the goalposts back with another layer of reality-clouding obfuscation the moment anything is proved to them.

Moreover, it takes a special kind of contrarian to look at all the evidence distinctly for the idea of a mind, and then decide that rather than the natural conclusion being true, everything is just pretending like this is so, despite having absolutely no evidence of that.

Solipsism IS largely useless. That's why I'm willing to make the assumption that the things I experience have an existence separate from my own experience it. But if you really want to seek the truth, we have to be honest with where our understanding comes from: especially, we have to distinguish between scientific discoveries and pragmatic assumptions. When you do science that is rooted in assumptions to prove those same assumptions, then it's not really science at all.

The way to know for sure something else has a mind is to mind-meld with it. After that, you have to interface indirectly: through communication, through brain studies, etc. But when the subject of discussion is mind/matter duality issues, that process no longer means anything, because your conclusions are embedded in your methodolgy.

[genkaus]

Your definition of knowing there's a mind and mine are not the same. I could do the same to YOU and not know in an absolute sense that there is an actual mind there, rather than a philosophical zombie brain that BEHAVES aware but isn't. Basically, I have to start with solipsism, and then choose what assumptions I'm willing to make.

Your definition of knowledge seems to be that unless you can directly perceive it, there is no way of knowing it is there. By this standard, you must also regard most of the knowledge that humanity has gained as not actual knowledge. There is no way of knowing that micro-organisms exist - the microscopes might just be behaving in a particular way. There is no way of knowing that historical events actually happened - the records could be behaving in that particular way. There is no way of knowing that a human is writing this post - your computer might just be behaving in such a way.

But then, there is know way of knowing that you have a brain - your body just might be behaving in such a way. And the X-rays and MRI's might be behaving in such a way as to pretend as if there is a brain whereas, actually, there isn't.

[Brakeman]

Then the conversation is kind of over, since someone starting with the useless idea of solipsism can just move the goalposts back with another layer of reality-clouding obfuscation the moment anything is proved to them.

Moreover, it takes a special kind of contrarian to look at all the evidence distinctly for the idea of a mind, and then decide that rather than the natural conclusion being true, everything is just pretending like this is so, despite having absolutely no evidence of that.

Solipsism IS largely useless. That's why I'm willing to make the assumption that the things I experience have an existence separate from my own experience it. But if you really want to seek the truth, we have to be honest with where our understanding comes from: especially, we have to distinguish between scientific discoveries and pragmatic assumptions. When you do science that is rooted in assumptions to prove those same assumptions, then it's not really science at all.

Fixing that for you..

"Solipsism IS largely useless. That's why I'm willing to make the useless assumption that the things I experience have an existence separate from my own experience it. But if you really want to seek the truth, we have to be honest with where our understanding comes from: especially, we have to distinguish between scientific discoveries and pragmatic assumptions and stupid useless mental masturbation. When you do science that is rooted in assumptions of reality to prove those same assumptions useful things about our world, then it's not really science at all."

[Tonus]

Okay one forum member got rude, your point?
If you are trying to say that atheists on here are rude to Christians for being Christian, then you are mistaken. Its the holier then thou attitude I think.

It's more than one. The simple fact is that theists do often get treated rudely on here. I have no issue with that, nor with theists "biting back" as it were. None of that stops anyone from presenting an argument and finding ways to back it with convincing data or evidence. But some people find it a convenient to hide behind "mommy the people are being mean to me and I cannot collect my thoughts" or some similar nonsense. If a person can prove god, then the vitriol would feel much better than it does when you try to pass a poor argument off as worthy of consideration.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Unlike you, Apo, who provides both background and clarification for your posts, Chas calls mind an emergent property as if he need only pronounce it so for it to be the case. If Chas, or any other forum member, wants to call mind an emergent property, then it’s only fair that they should be clear as to what they mean.

Emergence comes in various stripes. You have emergent abilities like photosynthesis, emergent functions like bricks, emergent qualities like wetness, and emergent patterns like hurricanes. You could even argue that meaning emerges from complex arrangements of symbols.
Furthermore, even if mind is an emergent property, however vaguely defined, that status alone would not completely define the relationship between body and mind. Once mind appears does it have a downward causal role? Or is mind an epiphenomena? Perhaps the emergent property of the brain is its ability to receive, rather than generate, mental properties. Or perhaps, the mind operates simultaneously and parallel to the body, as proposed by Leibnitz. Not all forms of emergence lead to materialism.

Sorry to throw the bullshit flag on your "emergent properties" foul, Chas and company.

As for the idea that nothing mental happens without a brain, none of you have presented any way that signification, qualia, or intentionality can be properly attributed to any physical process nor any means for excluding it from simple physical systems, like thermostats. Oh right, emergent properties arising out of complex systems...that's the pixie dust to which you cling. Poor sods.

[Ben Davis]

Purpose: many atheists claim the afterlife is impossible since the mind and the brain are the same. my aim is specifically against those claims, showing they are in fact not the same and establishing the independent function of the mind from the brain is possible.

No one who knows what they're talking about, irrespective of their beliefs, claims that the mind & the brain are the same thing. The claim that results from the best evidence, currently available, is that the mind is an emergent property of certain neurological functions of the brain. Consequently, you are trying to address a straw-man.

Argument:
P1: it is possible (meaning conceivably possible) for the mind to act independently of the brain.

Yes, it's conceivable. That doesn't mean it's realistic. I mean, I once dreamed I was a hedge. What's your point?

P2: it is impossible for the brain to act independently of the brain.

True, a tautology.

C1: there is an aspect of the mind that is different from the brain (P1, P2).

Yes. That's one of the reasons we have different words for them.

P3: if two things are the same (meaning same identity), they must have exactly the same aspects and properties. if there is a single aspect that is different, then the two are not the same.

Indeed. The law of Identity.

C2: the mind and the brain are not the same (C1, P3).

Yes. As I said earlier, as far as I'm aware, no-one worth listening to claims that they are.

Conclusion: the mind and the brain are not the same thing, therefore it is possible for the mind to function independent of the brain.

No. You cannot reach that conclusion from your position because you have made no statements regarding the definitions of the functions of mind & brain, only the semantic definitions.

Objections:
1. this doesn't prove the mind can function independent of the brain-- correct. it only proves it's possible, which is all this argument aspires to establish.

All you establish is that it's possible for the labels 'brain' & 'mind' to have 2 different definitions.

2. but what happens to the brain can affect what happens to the mind, so that proves they are the same-- that may be true, but that only establishes a connection not an equivalence. the brain can affect the mind without being the same as the mind.

Once again, no-one seriously claims that means they're 'the same', all it means is that there's a relationship, likely a complicity between mind & brain.

3. P1 is false therefore both conclusions are also false-- in that premise I was speaking of conceivable possibility. it would be easier to understand that with some basic knowledge of modal logic. what it means though, is we can conceive of such a thing happening without creating a logical incoherence. it can be shown that it is not incoherent by the numerous stories/movies of people who have their minds switched, or transferred, or astral project. we can conceive of such things without thinking it incoherent, therefore it is conceivably possible.

Aha, the point of P1. Concept= reality? Nope.

So, what you've failed to plug in to your argument are:

1. all the necessary terms
2. rigorous definitions of those terms
3. evidence to support the use of those terms in context

It's no wonder your conclusion is erroneous.

[Bucky Ball]

Chas, prove that mental properties are emergent. As opposed to received or having preexisting harmony.

Received from where? And what is 'preexisting harmony'?

While you're at it, define exactly what "non-harmonious" states, where THEY come from, and why is it, that in every case, they are associated with demonstrable, identifiable chemical imbalances, and physical disease states.

---

Unlike you, Apo, who provides both background and clarification for your posts, Chas calls mind an emergent property as if he need only pronounce it so for it to be the case. If Chas, or any other forum member, wants to call mind an emergent property, then it’s only fair that they should be clear as to what they mean.

Emergence comes in various stripes. You have emergent abilities like photosynthesis, emergent functions like bricks, emergent qualities like wetness, and emergent patterns like hurricanes. You could even argue that meaning emerges from complex arrangements of symbols.
Furthermore, even if mind is an emergent property, however vaguely defined, that status alone would not completely define the relationship between body and mind. Once mind appears does it have a downward causal role? Or is mind an epiphenomena? Perhaps the emergent property of the brain is its ability to receive, rather than generate, mental properties. Or perhaps, the mind operates simultaneously and parallel to the body, as proposed by Leibnitz. Not all forms of emergence lead to materialism.

Sorry to throw the bullshit flag on your "emergent properties" foul, Chas and company.

As for the idea that nothing mental happens without a brain, none of you have presented any way that signification, qualia, or intentionality can be properly attributed to any physical process nor any means for excluding it from simple physical systems, like thermostats. Oh right, emergent properties arising out of complex systems...that's the pixie dust to which you cling. Poor sods.

No. "Intentionality", "qualia" and "signification" are perfectly explained by Neurophysiology, and Neurobiology. You think they are produced in your ass ? The ability to do those things is 100 % associated with normal, healthy brain structures and functions, and is inhibited by brain damage.
Just because you can't explain some brain products, does not prove anything about the impossibility of their production WITHOUT a brain. Show us ONE instance of "intentionality" in the absence of a brain.



meow

[Neo-Scholastic]

I accept your challenge. When you set a thermostat to 72, it intends to reach it. Explain to me how this is different from a hungry dog that intends to eat a rabbit. From a materialistic perspective both exhibit mental properties. Only the thermostat has no brain yet shows goal directed behaviour.