Mind is the brain?

[little_monkey]

 That's mumbo-jumbo, and you know it. There is no law in nature that says I can't correlate. The question is what does the correlation show? And that leads to the next point below that I've made before...

You can correlate two observable properties.  Mind is not observable.

And you've decided that mind isn't observable!? Who are you? God to make that decision for all of humanity??

So while you disparage that I claim that mind is something that can be measured, you make the presumptuous assumption from the get go that mind isn't observable, therefore cannot be studied. But there are many things in science that are not observable - electrons to name one out of hundreds. So in other words, you are closing any discussion by saying, "Never mind guys, you're wasting your time. Mind cannot be observed in any way, shape or form." Wow. 

What will you say if androids become self-aware, that God did it?? Or if we discover that there are thousands of aliens throughout the galaxy who are self-aware, that God did that too??

 You can't answer that point because it defeats your argument. Scientific experiments points in one direction, MIND = BRAIN ACTIVITIES, but you refuse to accept that reality.

All caps don't add truth.  Nor has science proven itself up to the task of answering philosophical questions about things which aren't objectively observable.  In short, you haven't established that you are even experimenting on what you say you're experimenting on.

It isn't open to science because you've closed your mind to that. Fortunately, thousands of scientists don't agree with you.

What if someone decided that since God can't be directly observed, he would take what everyone "knows" is God-- feelings of inspiration-- as a correlate.  Then every time someone said they felt inspired, he'd claim he was studying the Lord.  Dumb right?  Because God can't be shown even to exist, isn't it?

But inadvertently that's what you're claiming: Someone says that God is unobservable (dumb, according to you); you say mind is unobservable (that's also dump, according to me  ).

[Panatheist]

Little monkey, how do you suggest that we observe the mind scientifically?

[bennyboy]

You can correlate two observable properties.  Mind is not observable.

And you've decided that mind isn't observable!? Who are you? God to make that decision for all of humanity??

Nope. Just a guy who knows what the word means.

So while you disparage that I claim that mind is something that can be measured, you make the presumptuous assumption from the get go that mind isn't observable, therefore cannot be studied. But there are many things in science that are not observable - electrons to name one out of hundreds. So in other words, you are closing any discussion by saying, "Never mind guys, you're wasting your time. Mind cannot be observed in any way, shape or form." Wow.

The difference is that electrons, dark matter, gravity, etc. are all theories about things that you can't see that are best fits. Those theories were made in an attempt to explain the unknown behind the observable. In the case of mind, the reverse is true: observations were made to "fit" with what everybody already knows: the reality of mind. The problem is that mind isn't really required to explain any of the things you are studying as mind. I mean-- smiles? Data processing? Hugs from mom? These are all completely explained by physics, are they not? So why even bother talking about "mind"?

What will you say if androids become self-aware, that God did it?? Or if we discover that there are thousands of aliens throughout the galaxy who are self-aware, that God did that too??

eh? Why are you talking about God?

All caps don't add truth.  Nor has science proven itself up to the task of answering philosophical questions about things which aren't objectively observable.  In short, you haven't established that you are even experimenting on what you say you're experimenting on.

It isn't open to science because you've closed your mind to that. Fortunately, thousands of scientists don't agree with you.

Millions of scientists don't agree with me, if you include university students, neurobiologists and modern psychologists. But there is a pattern-- they have all made the philosophical assumptions required to substitute supposed correlates for mind with the actual fact of mind. Anyway, I'm not sure why, in a philosophy thread, you'd want to appeal to a population, or to an authority, and choose scientists-- scientists are notoriously incapable of answering philosophical questions, because science isn't the right tool for that job.

What if someone decided that since God can't be directly observed, he would take what everyone "knows" is God-- feelings of inspiration-- as a correlate.  Then every time someone said they felt inspired, he'd claim he was studying the Lord.  Dumb right?  Because God can't be shown even to exist, isn't it?

But inadvertently that's what you're claiming: Someone says that God is unobservable (dumb, according to you); you say mind is unobservable (that's also dump, according to me  ).

eh?
I'm saying that both God and mind are equally unobservable, and required to explain the same percentage of what happens in the universe: 0%. The difference is that some people "know" there's mind, and others "know" there's God. In neither case is there a process of observation by which one finds God or mind as a best fit for observations. In both cases, since the thing is already believed to be known, the believer makes up correlates to stand in lieu of the ability to directly observe either God or mind. In both cases, the operational definitions that they will choose necessarily beg the question. As soon as you say "mind is brain," and start studying the brain as though it's mind, you've begged the question. As soon as you say, "God is love," and start studying the effects of love on the world, you've begged the question.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nor has science proven itself up to the task of answering philosophical questions about things which aren't objectively observable.

Your problem is that mental activity -- i.e., mind -- has been observed, via MRI experiments which, uh, correlate areas of the brain with specific cognitive processes.

As to value of answering "philosophical" questions about things which aren't objectively observable, if you want to count the angels dancing on the head of a pin, go right ahead. You will still need to convince me, and no doubt others, of the value of your obscure musings.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Little monkey, how do you suggest that we observe the mind scientifically?

We already do that in some ways with MRIs, mapping mental activities to brain regions. We can also do it on a statistical basis, generating a bell-curve of responses along the human spectrum of behavior, such that we can define, and treat, such mental illnesses as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder with chemical therapy.

Brainwashing, in the original sense of the word, could be seen in a few Korean War veterans. Did the North Koreans change the minds of these American soldiers? Can we get out a ruler and measure it? Of course not. But that is not the only yardstick of scientific inquiry. The mind is complex and nebulous enough that we are still, in this day and age, gathering data points so that we can even know what questions to ask at all. But that doesn't mean it is immune to scientific inquiry; it only means that the journey has just started.


I'm not big on indulging God-of-the-Gaps thinking, myself.

[Neo-Scholastic]

that doesn't mean it is immune to scientific inquiry; it only means that the journey has just started.

Yeah, someday, maybe. That promissory note has long since expired, along with nineteenth century physics.

[Panatheist]

I wonder if mind and consciousness are even the same thing. It seems like often my mind has been thinking about something and I was only conscious of it later. For example, I'll be thinking in my sleep, but only later become self-aware once I am awake and only then become cognizant of the fact that I was thinking about something. Similarly if damage is done to part of the visual cortex it causes a blind spot in the opposite side of the visual field. When an object is presented within that blind spot the person reports no awareness of said object and yet can respond to visual stimuli in that area in certain ways (saying at above chance levels of accuracy whether the object moved up or down, had vertical or horizontal stripes, etc.) And our automatic reactions such as those of skilled behavior often precede any consciousness of them. I am sure there are neural correlates to all of these behaviors in my brain whether "I" am conscious of them or not.

[bennyboy]

Nor has science proven itself up to the task of answering philosophical questions about things which aren't objectively observable.

Your problem is that mental activity -- i.e., mind -- has been observed, via MRI experiments which, uh, correlate areas of the brain with specific cognitive processes.

As to value of answering "philosophical" questions about things which aren't objectively observable, if you want to count the angels dancing on the head of a pin, go right ahead. You will still need to convince me, and no doubt others, of the value of your obscure musings.

This is a view typical of material monism, but there's a problem.  Mind is subjective, and you are talking about objective measurements.  You insist that those objective measurements ARE the same as the subjective experiences, but this is the exact definition of begging the question.  There's no point finding out if mind is brain function if you are defining mind in terms of brain function-- blood flow, neural activity, brain waves, or otherwise.

This thread will just be your position and mine restated a hundred times, with no forward progress.  That's because we are operating on different assumptions-- specifically, you are operating on a greater body of assumptions than I am, and thus you have a narrower view of what mind may/may not be.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your problem is that mental activity -- i.e., mind -- has been observed, via MRI experiments which, uh, correlate areas of the brain with specific cognitive processes.

As to value of answering "philosophical" questions about things which aren't objectively observable, if you want to count the angels dancing on the head of a pin, go right ahead. You will still need to convince me, and no doubt others, of the value of your obscure musings.

This is a view typical of material monism, but there's a problem.  Mind is subjective, and you are talking about objective measurements.

You asked for material metrics, and when they're provided, you complain that I'm providing them?

You insist that those objective measurements ARE the same as the subjective experiences, but this is the exact definition of begging the question.  There's no point finding out if mind is brain function if you are defining mind in terms of brain function-- blood flow, neural activity, brain waves, or otherwise.

You're ignoring the point that we can correlate those physical expressions of activity with both brain-mapping and reported subjective experiences ("I'm think of that day back in 67 when...")

Do you think that the data found in fMRI processing is random and unconnected with thinking?

This thread will just be your position and mine restated a hundred times, with no forward progress.  That's because we are operating on different assumptions-- specifically, you are operating on a greater body of assumptions than I am, and thus you have a narrower view of what mind may/may not be.

While I agree that we probably won't come to any agreement, I disagree that my position rests on more assumptions. It's unsurprising you'd allege that, though.

[little_monkey]

And you've decided that mind isn't observable!? Who are you? God to make that decision for all of humanity??

Nope.  Just a guy who knows what the word means.

So while you disparage that I claim that mind is something that can be measured, you make the presumptuous assumption from the get go that mind isn't observable, therefore cannot be studied. But there are many things in science that are not observable - electrons to name one out of hundreds. So in other words, you are closing any discussion by saying, "Never mind guys, you're wasting your time. Mind cannot be observed in any way, shape or form." Wow.

The difference is that electrons, dark matter, gravity, etc. are all theories about things that you can't see that are best fits.  Those theories were made in an attempt to explain the unknown behind the observable.  In the case of mind, the reverse is true: observations were made to "fit" with what everybody already knows: the reality of mind.  The problem is that mind isn't really required to explain any of the things you are studying as mind.  I mean-- smiles?  Data processing?  Hugs from mom?  These are all completely explained by physics, are they not?  So why even bother talking about "mind"?

What will you say if androids become self-aware, that God did it?? Or if we discover that there are thousands of aliens throughout the galaxy who are self-aware, that God did that too??

eh?  Why are you talking about God?

It isn't open to science because you've closed your mind to that. Fortunately, thousands of scientists don't agree with you.

Millions of scientists don't agree with me, if you include university students, neurobiologists and modern psychologists.  But there is a pattern-- they have all made the philosophical assumptions required to substitute supposed correlates for mind with the actual fact of mind.  Anyway, I'm not sure why, in a philosophy thread, you'd want to appeal to a population, or to an authority, and choose scientists-- scientists are notoriously incapable of answering philosophical questions, because science isn't the right tool for that job.

But inadvertently that's what you're claiming: Someone says that God is unobservable (dumb, according to you); you say mind is unobservable (that's also dump, according to me  ).

eh?
I'm saying that both God and mind are equally unobservable, and required to explain the same percentage of what happens in the universe: 0%.  The difference is that some people "know" there's mind, and others "know" there's God.  In neither case is there a process of observation by which one finds God or mind as a best fit for observations.  In both cases, since the thing is already believed to be known, the believer makes up correlates to stand in lieu of the ability to directly observe either God or mind.  In both cases, the operational definitions that they will choose necessarily beg the question.  As soon as you say "mind is brain," and start studying the brain as though it's mind, you've begged the question.  As soon as you say, "God is love," and start studying the effects of love on the world, you've begged the question.

I bring up the question of God because it is at the root of your problem. You want to believe that mind is more than brain activities, that it has some other quality - called immaterial, or spiritual, whatever "flavor of the month" word, and in that belief,  it cannot be observed, and so that leaves you just enough space for you to believe in God, who would be of the same essence of the mind- spiritual, immaterial, whatever.  Your concept of the "mind" is what religious people have called for centuries  the "soul", the non-physical thing that will survive after death. So argue all you want, Benny, but you are fooling yourself by trying relentlessly to deny that mind is just brain activity. Just acknowledge that you want to believe in God. Why all the obfuscation? Come out of the closet, and be honest, not particularly with me, but with yourself.