Mind = Brain?

[Purple Rabbit]

Never used it before, but Rhizo's post suggested it to me. It has opened doors since. Now I can speak in tongues too. It's brilliant.

[Purple Rabbit]

Me, Well everyone who knows me here should be able to guess, for all else I'm on the Mind = Brain bandwagon because i see no function of the mind that cannot be explained by the brain.

Then please explain to me how neurons firing in the brain constitute a mathematical thought, like say a simple one that everyone encounters at school, the Pythagorean theorem.

[theVOID]

Me, Well everyone who knows me here should be able to guess, for all else I'm on the Mind = Brain bandwagon because i see no function of the mind that cannot be explained by the brain.

Then please explain to me how neurons firing in the brain constitute a mathematical thought, like say a simple one that everyone encounters at school, the Pythagorean theorem.

I'm not well versed in Neurology so don't hold what i'm about to say with any level of certainty, but it was my understanding that there are two specific circuits in the brain that represent numbers in two different ways, #1 defines numbers with a combination of variables and gives them a name this allows the brain to store x number of potential combinations allowing the brain to deal with large numbers - the numbers in this circuit are whole numbers and decimals, are always defined in the same unique way and is directly linked to our sense of scale and context. #2 is more of a pattern seeking circuit and is used to estimate answers, rounding of numbers and establishing relationships between numbers.

Reaching any conclusion in mathematics requires that circuit 1 has the numbers you require and circuit 2 understands what relationship between the numbers you wish to seek.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...N28876.DTL

An interesting insight into mathematics in the brain is the comparison between Chinese and English people and how they use different areas of the brain for certain parts of the process - the English methodology is largely addition based (reflecting our structure of words and combinations) while the Chinese methodology is focused more on the appearance of the numbers visually.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003550.html

If you disagree with the aforementioned then do you want to explain how a non-physical (non brain) process is supposed to do mathematics? What does it use as variables if not electrical signals?

[Purple Rabbit]

This is a far cry from having explained anything that resembles the question stated. It reminds me of the cartoon of two professors at the chalk board full with formulas and somewhere in the middle the note "and then a miracle happens", I'm sure you know the one. Also, I did ask you to explain it to me, not to redirect me to other internet sources.

If you disagree with the aforementioned then do you want to explain how a non-physical (non brain) process is supposed to do mathematics? What does it use as variables if not electrical signals?

I do not necessarily disagree with the aforementioned, but I do disagree that it is anything near an 'explanation'. Also questioning a statement of yours is not the same as claiming the opposite of that statement. So there is no obligation for me whatsoever to reason in favour of that. You have made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. You showed yourself quite confident in your opening post about your ability in explaning this but it seems to me right now that your words don't quite match with what's under the hood.

But cheer up, there is some consolation for you in the fact that no one as of yet has been able to do what you suggested you can do. We are only just understanding some basic things of the brain, the gap between neurons firing and first person awareness of mathematical concepts however hasn't been bridged at all.

[theVOID]

This is a far cry from having explained anything that resembles the question stated. It reminds me of the cartoon of two professors at the chalk board full with formulas and somewhere in the middle the note "and then a miracle happens", I'm sure you know the one. Also, I did ask you to explain it to me, not to redirect me to other internet sources.

If you disagree with the aforementioned then do you want to explain how a non-physical (non brain) process is supposed to do mathematics? What does it use as variables if not electrical signals?

I do not necessarily disagree with the aforementioned, but I do disagree that it is anything near an 'explanation'. Also questioning a statement of yours is not the same as claiming the opposite of that statement. So there is no obligation for me whatsoever to reason in favour of that. You have made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you. You showed yourself quite confident in your opening post about your ability in explaning this but it seems to me right now that your words don't quite match with what's under the hood.

But cheer up, there is some consolation for you in the fact that no one as of yet has been able to do what you suggested you can do. We are only just understanding some basic things of the brain, the gap between neurons firing and first person awareness of mathematical concepts however hasn't been bridged at all.

I know you asked me to explain it but, like i said, I'm not well versed in neurology, but your analogy of the cartoon professors was completely inaccurate as i did not simply say "it just happened", i explained that i don't know a whole lot about Neurology and then offered my simple understanding of how mathematics is possible / takes place in the mind/brain along with some articles i had bookmarked which i thought would be able to answer your question better. I'm fully aware that the Brain is one of the single most complicated areas of study imaginable and we are only at the very beginning of our ventures into understanding it.

As for why i feel confident with my position:

I consider the mind being an abstract of the physical brain the most likely scenario due largely to occams Razor, that being the mind brain relationship does not require an assumption where as the opposing position requires the introduction of a separate state of reality (supernatural) in which a process of mind could take place. So this is a case of choosing the conclusion that requires the least number of assumptions and not one based on any empirical certainty, though even empirically the absence of evidence for anything supernatural as opposed to the evidence for mind/brain correlation lends strong credence to the latter and none to the former.

And if you are looking for someone to pick over neurology with then might i suggest taking it up with someone more knowledgeable in the area - i'm not equipped to argue on the subject - but if you can find someone here who's up to it it'd be cool to follow the arguments for and against and gain a little context over the disagreement.

[Purple Rabbit]

I know you asked me to explain it but, like i said, I'm not well versed in neurology, but your analogy of the cartoon professors was completely inaccurate as i did not simply say "it just happened", i explained that i don't know a whole lot about Neurology and then offered my simple understanding of how mathematics is possible / takes place in the mind/brain along with some articles i had bookmarked which i thought would be able to answer your question better. I'm fully aware that the Brain is one of the single most complicated areas of study imaginable and we are only at the very beginning of our ventures into understanding it.

OK, VOID, fair enough. I just felt you overstated with "because i see no function of the mind that cannot be explained by the brain". It suggests all about the relation between brain and mind is explained already, which is not the case at all.

As for why i feel confident with my position:

I consider the mind being an abstract of the physical brain the most likely scenario due largely to occams Razor, that being the mind brain relationship does not require an assumption where as the opposing position requires the introduction of a separate state of reality (supernatural) in which a process of mind could take place. So this is a case of choosing the conclusion that requires the least number of assumptions and not one based on any empirical certainty, though even empirically the absence of evidence for anything supernatural as opposed to the evidence for mind/brain correlation lends strong credence to the latter and none to the former.

From all positions to choose from, I too feel most confident with the naturalistic position simply because the other positions, most notably the supernatural position, have no predictive and explaining power at all. That said, I think my stance is more accurately phrased as "body constitutes mind" for the brain is not separate from the body and the rest of our nervous system and the physical level does not equate to the conceptual level.

And if you are looking for someone to pick over neurology with then might i suggest taking it up with someone more knowledgeable in the area - i'm not equipped to argue on the subject - but if you can find someone here who's up to it it'd be cool to follow the arguments for and against and gain a little context over the disagreement.

I'm afraid there's not much available here on that topic. My attempts in the past here to delve some deeper in this debate (on qualia, first person experience, emergent properties) all encountered the same entrenched opinion of both theists and atheists. While I think that skepticism is a tool to gain knowledge. A skeptic ultimately has no friends in debate, and shouldn't want any.

[theVOID]

As for why i feel confident with my position:

I consider the mind being an abstract of the physical brain the most likely scenario due largely to occams Razor, that being the mind brain relationship does not require an assumption where as the opposing position requires the introduction of a separate state of reality (supernatural) in which a process of mind could take place. So this is a case of choosing the conclusion that requires the least number of assumptions and not one based on any empirical certainty, though even empirically the absence of evidence for anything supernatural as opposed to the evidence for mind/brain correlation lends strong credence to the latter and none to the former.

From all positions to choose from, I too feel most confident with the naturalistic position simply because the other positions, most notably the supernatural position, have no predictive and explaining power at all. That said, I think my stance is more accurately phrased as "body constitutes mind" for the brain is not separate from the body and the rest of our nervous system and the physical level does not equate to the conceptual level.

I see it more like a computer with the senses and limbs etc being peripherals, the physical body like the motherboard and the brain like the CPU and RAM which is doing the calculations for the OS/Mind - buit i gota admit it's a super simplistic analogy.

[Purple Rabbit]

I see it more like a computer with the senses and limbs etc being peripherals, the physical body like the motherboard and the brain like the CPU and RAM which is doing the calculations for the OS/Mind - buit i gota admit it's a super simplistic analogy.

Well, that's a very common case of oversimplification considering the minute advances. It equates to blind faith if you believe that the CPU in your computer has any experience of the information it processes. But with enough speculation we'll all be computers really soon.

[Amphora]

And if you are looking for someone to pick over neurology with then might i suggest taking it up with someone more knowledgeable in the area - i'm not equipped to argue on the subject - but if you can find someone here who's up to it it'd be cool to follow the arguments for and against and gain a little context over the disagreement.

I'm afraid there's not much available here on that topic. My attempts in the past here to delve some deeper in this debate (on qualia, first person experience, emergent properties) all encountered the same entrenched opinion of both theists and atheists. While I think that skepticism is a tool to gain knowledge. A skeptic ultimately has no friends in debate, and shouldn't want any.

Gentleman, you can pick my brain about neurology, I know a little bit about it, but I am not a neurologist.

[Purple Rabbit]

[quote='theVOID']
Gentleman, you can pick my brain about neurology, I know a little bit about it, but I am not a neurologist.

OK, what is your take on the Pythagorean theorem question?