Mind is the brain?

[Angrboda]

Oh God, not again.

[bennyboy]

i would add strongly to your post is that in science that's all we do: correlations. Every laws of nature we discovered expressed as an equation is a correlation. Every scientific theory is based on a number of hypotheses which is translated into equation, which are correlations. If anyone thinks that correlations are not the way to go, then you've just denied science.

Okay, so in science of mind, what 2 things are you correlating? Observed behaviors and/or brain function with what, exactly?

If you say, "mind," then you might also try saying "God." Because both of those are equally observable in this Universe.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ru-heally?  You sure?

Okay, tell me, by what criteria will I establish whether a given system experiences qualia?

*Absuive redefinition of "qualia" into physical monist terms in 5. . . 4. . . 3. . . 2. . . 1 . . *

You clearly know that such criteria exists to be called abusive in the first place. If this is your objection, and since you seem to know that it's false by reference to your -own- comments..... on what grounds do you object, again?

[little_monkey]

I've defined it. There's no need to redefine what has been defined.

Is there ever a point where mind does not equal activities of the brain?

There's a theory, not in the scientific sense of a theory, that your stomach is your second brain. Who knows how much truth there is in that...

[little_monkey]

i would add strongly to your post is that in science that's all we do: correlations. Every laws of nature we discovered expressed as an equation is a correlation. Every scientific theory is based on a number of hypotheses which is translated into equation, which are correlations. If anyone thinks that correlations are not the way to go, then you've just denied science.

Okay, so in science of mind, what 2 things are you correlating?  Observed behaviors and/or brain function with what, exactly?

If you say, "mind," then you might also try saying "God."  Because both of those are equally observable in this Universe.

Hi benny, long time no see. I'm JP (click on my blog below) from atheist.com where we had many discussions on the "immaterial". Don't know if your position has changed since then, probably not from the nature of this post... LOL.

To answer your post: the correlations are done in many ways, but one of them is to look through MRI images of a brain and ask the patient to do certain things, like raise a finger, say "mama", and so on, and then correlate the parts of the brains that show any kind of activity - electrical, chemical, and so on. So, this is a mapping between activities the patient does, thinks or feels with areas of the brains that show signs something is happening. 

I cannot do that with"God". It would be nice if "God" would volunteer at any hospital on this planet and let us pick his "brain" if he has one. So no, you can't correlate with God in any meaningful way that is observable as this is the only way I can differentiate a good theory from a crackpot theory - empirical, verifiable, observable evidence.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Philosophical maundering aside, I propose (again) a practical test to determine if minds are material in nature, and if said minds are the result of brain function.

Firstly, we know, beyond all rational doubt, that we can electronically detect even minimal brain activity. Secondly, we know, again beyond all rational doubt, that every verifiable mind the human species has ever encountered was a possessed by a being with a functioning brain. It seems reasonable, then, that if we could destroy all functions of the brain, we should be unable to detect any activity or 'mind'. So:

Take a human brain (if you haven't got a spare lying around, there are places you can acquire one). Mince the brain. Shove the bits through a sieve. Dry the resulting sludge and grind it into a fine powder. Douse the powder with petrol and set it on fire. When it has cooled sufficiently, perform every electroencelographic test you think of. If you can detect unmistakable brain activity, I'll listen to what you have to say about dualism.

Boru

[brewer]

I'm not convinced I believe this. Minds exist as a function of the brain. If the functioning brain is altered then the function of the mind is altered.

You are stating as fact something which you assume.  Tell me, by what criteria will you establish an actually sentient being from a philosophical zombie?

Before you tell me that mind is altered, you have to tell me how you know that there IS a mind to be altered.  Cuz I say it can't be done.

Quote from you: " Qualia are the "what it's like" of experience-- what it's like to taste pineapple, for example, cannot be explained by any observations outside the direct experience of tasting pineapple."

So, have a person eat a pineapple for the first time (removing every other sense beside taste) and have them describe the "what it's like". Then (hypothetically) destroy the portion of the brain primarily responsible for taste. Have them eat pineapple again and get the description. The "what it's like" will have changed. This is seen in brain injury victims. Loss of taste, smell, touch, ability to understand speech, ability to speak, ability to recognize shapes/people/places. Their "what it's like" has changed.

[bennyboy]

Okay, so in science of mind, what 2 things are you correlating?  Observed behaviors and/or brain function with what, exactly?

If you say, "mind," then you might also try saying "God."  Because both of those are equally observable in this Universe.

Hi benny, long time no see. I'm JP (click on my blog below) from atheist.com where we had many discussions on the "immaterial". Don't know if your position has changed since then, probably not from the nature of this post... LOL.

To answer your post: the correlations are done in many ways, but one of them is to look through MRI images of a brain and ask the patient to do certain things, like raise a finger, say "mama", and so on, and then correlate the parts of the brains that show any kind of activity - electrical, chemical, and so on. So, this is a mapping between activities the patient does, thinks or feels with areas of the brains that show signs something is happening. 

I cannot do that with"God". It would be nice if "God" would volunteer at any hospital on this planet and let us pick his "brain" if he has one. So no, you can't correlate with God in any meaningful way that is observable as this is the only way I can differentiate a good theory from a crackpot theory - empirical, verifiable, observable evidence.

Nice to see you again!  I remember you very well, and will not say what name you went by there, but I know exactly who you are (at least in the context of that other forum).

The problem is that you are making an important assumption: that a person you are studying is not a philosophical zombie.  You do not actually know whether the smiling, breathing physical structure in front of you is experiencing "what it's like" to be mindful-- you accept them at their word when they say they are, but cannot know it.  It is because people SEEM to you to be mindful that you accept them as so, not because of any particular observation or measurement you are capable of making. I'd argue as well that the objective world by which you are studying a person's brain SEEMS to be as you experience it, but in the end, the decision to believe that is also a philosophical assumption rather than a fact which can be made on observations. In fact, I'd say that we've learned enough through science to know that the universe cannot be as it seems.

At any rate, we will soon have virtual "people" on the internet which can easily pass the Turing test.  They will make friends, they will say ideas, some of them quirky and some of them conservative.  They will talk about preferences, favorite movies, and make spelling mistakes.  They will SEEM to be mindful, but I'd argue that they will not be.  Therefore, the seeming of mindfulness and the fact of it should not be taken as equivalent.

Given this, let's look at the Christian perspective.  They think it seems as though God is real.  They have experiences, and feel the "ring of truth" in them.  The power of their experiences convinces them that God is real.  It SEEMS to them that God is real, though none of us would accept that as proof (or even sufficient evidence) of that.


I think this will become very clear with the following question: given physical system X in the universe, how will you know whether it experiences qualia?  In the case of non-animals, it might seem to you that nothing else in the Universe experiences anything.  But how will you, using the scientific method, go about establishing this? I don't think you can-- I think we are stuck correlating not mind, but the appearance of mind, with physical observations of brain (or other physical systems).

[The Grand Nudger]

The internet is already full of things that seem mindful, but aren't.  

You're right ofc. If things aren't as they seem things aren't as they seem. Or maybe it only seems like it seems that things aren't like they seem. No...wait, maybe it only seems...like it seems, like it seems, like it seems, likes it seems......

[robvalue]

I agree Boru.

I don't know a lot about dualism, but I would guess that if our minds "exist" in another plane, then they would say we just become disconnected from them when our brains are minced and burnt.

Of course, it's unfalsifiable and unecessary. I can see the emotional appeal of it, but I find no scientific reason to believe it as of yet.