Think deeply about it (the nature of mind)

[Philoscybin]

It wouldn't because the whole premise is based on irrational mystical absurdities. The OP is just stoned and ignorant.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ Dude, don't be a dick. If people can't come here to filofosize when they're fuctup, where CAN they go?

 

[slimvictor]

It wouldn't because the whole premise is based on irrational mystical absurdities. The OP is just stoned and ignorant.

Having a closed mind and a mean heart is the ultimate in ignorance.
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is okay to bash the person who said it.

And someone with a name like yours belittling people for being high on drugs?

Maybe you should do a time-out and re-think your negative attitude.
(That is what I say to all the rude children I have to deal with.)

 

[L2R]

i think there's a saying in japan: ignance is briss

or something

^ Dude, don't be a dick. If people can't come here to filofosize when they're fuctup, where CAN they go?

ha, wasn't there once a "don't post while high" rule in here?

but seriously, i'd like to read a follow up post by the OP. there is some dot connecting still needed for this barn to be built.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

ha, wasn't there once a "don't post while high" rule in here?

Only if the post is incoherent. Granted the themes holding the OP's post together are kinda loose. But incoherent it is not.

but seriously, i'd like to read a follow up post by the OP. there is some dot connecting still needed for this barn to be built.

Agreed.

 

[chairmanma084]

be nice to OP, or he'll stop coming to BL...

To be honest im a tad over this thread, its rather amusing the way you all have reacted.
You have caused me to lose all faith in Bluelight,
the majority of you cant even give me a base line answer?
I mean wtf.
so maybe i am fucked in the head?
maybe i have a different mix of chemicals?
chemical imbalance?

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ It's always chapped my ass the way people with only layman's knowledge or interest in philosophy, spirituality, and science often get treated to the P&S equivalent of what those Lounge folks call a raping, for having the temerity to ask a few simple questions in the terms they're familiar with.

That said, OP, everyone's going to take a different approach to anything you write, and you have to be ready for that.

 

[slimvictor]

^ It's always chapped my ass the way people with only layman's knowledge or interest in philosophy, spirituality, and science often get treated to the P&S equivalent of what those Lounge folks call a raping, for having the temerity to ask a few simple questions in the terms they're familiar with.

I love this! MDAO speaks for me as well here!

 

[slimvictor]

your consciousness (what you refer to as a soul) is a result of the collective electrical activity of the synapses of your brain.

Is it possible that this person makes an unwarranted assumption about the direction of causation?

Could it be, rather, that mind causes brain, or that “spirit” causes body?

There are many philosophies of science.

This person expresses a philosophy that accepts matter as the primary foundation of the universe.

However, some have expounded a philosophy that takes consciousness as the basis of the universe. This includes thinkers such as Goswami, who goes into detail about how quantum physics supports this view.

I quote from Wikipedia:
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Goswami)

The problem with science has always been that most scientists believe that science must be done within a […] monistic framework […] based on the primacy of matter. […] quantum physics showed us that we must change that myopic prejudice of scientists, otherwise we cannot comprehend quantum physics. So now we have science within consciousness, a new paradigm of science based on the primacy of consciousness that is gradually replacing the old materialist science. […] the new paradigm resolves many […] paradoxes of the old paradigm and explains much anomalous data

Goswami is not the only one to espouse such ideas, though he is the most famous physicist to do so. Many other great thinkers, upon whose backs established schools of philosophy have rested, have stood for a similar perspective.

George Berkeley would have agreed with this. In The Principles of Human Knowledge, he argues that “all the choir of heaven and the furniture of earth, in a word all those bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world, have not any subsistence without a mind, that their being is to be perceived..."

The origins of this type of view go back as far as Western Philosophy, at least to Plato, whose allegory of a cave is famous even today. Plato said that humans can be described as sitting in a cave, facing the wall, watching the shadows, as we mistake the shadows for reality. So, once again, you can see that humans are described as being unable to directly grasp the outside world; we can apprehend only a two-dimensional, colorless version of it (which is the truth of the outside world after being pigeonholed into our categories, or, if you prefer – “the limits of my mind are the limits of my world”, which is what Wittgenstein believed ).

Both Lao Tze and Confucious recognized the primacy of spirit, which for Confucius was manifested in physical form as individuals and relationships between individuals. They represent the only two schools of thought really relevant in the history of China (until the 20th century) other than Buddhism, though Chinese Buddhism was deeply influenced by Daoism. And of course Buddhism, while not accepting the existence of a soul, also considers the physical world to be empty, and it holds a major position in the history of thought in East, South and Southeast Asia (representing roughly half of the world's population).

Of course the philosophies of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, with their combined 7000 years of history, disagree on many things, but they all agree that spirit (or “God”) comes before matter (the world we appear to live in).

Other traditions, such as many African and Native American traditions, take spirit to be primary over matter.

Many other philosophers have argued that we can’t ever know truth, which is the most important part of the argument against the original statement I quoted, since this statement assumes that the truth is known.

To put it simply, I feel uncertain about the direction of the causation.

Kant tells us that what we imagine to be reality is simply the phenomena of true reality as filtered through our minds. Nicholas of Cusa argued that “…the intellect is to truth as an inscribed polygon is to the inscribed circle. The more angles the inscribed polygon has the more similar it is to the circle. However, even if the number of angles is increased ad infinitum, the polygon never becomes equal to the circle unless it is resolved into an identity with the circle.”

My intention here, as I hope was apparent, was not to argue for a particular philosophy of science, but simply to argue that we must entertain the possibility that the prevalent and accepted philosophies of science just might be mistaken. Who would have thought that the laws of Newton would fail to account for reality once we simply expanded our vantage point to include the unimaginably vast world of the super small? They were touted by excellent scientists as “perfect”. They were (and still remain) common sense. We must continually and consciously question our “common sense”, whether we are thinking about science or for other purposes, as it contains the seeds of betrayal.

It is easy to slip into the viewpoint that our own philosophy is the correct one, but based on the history of major revisions of human thought over the past few thousand years and a consideration of cultural relativity, it is methodologically superior to be open to other possibilities.

 

[azzazza !?]

^excellent post

 

[Heuristic]

I also agree with complexPHILOSOPHY and qwe, having taken medical school neuroscience not long aso: the statement 'the brain's neuronal firings cause sentient consciousness' is not currently falsifiable or testable, and therefore not yet within the grasp of science, despite an ongoing parade of logical arguments (of varying quality) for it by philosophers of mind. The idea that any given mental state correlates predictably with a pattern of neuronal firing, on the other hand, is quite testable with currently technology, and has proven robust. But the question of why I currently am seeing the world sentiently through the physical eyes (and brain) than I am, is a question still fully within the realm of philosophy.

That statement 'the brain's neuronal firings cause sentient consciousness' may not be directly testable, but we can test many other things that we would expect to see if the brain did cause sentient consciousness. We would expect to be able to alter states of consciousness, access to memory, sensations, etc., by manipulating the brain--and we are. We would expect damage to certain parts of the brain to remove certain states of consciousness and mental capabilities--and it does. We would expect to see no symptoms of consciousness in the absence of neurological activity--and we don't.

So these things are pretty strong evidence that the brain causes consciousness.

The important part of the causal theory is that it produces falsifiable predictions that we really can test, even if we can't directly see consciousness in another being.

I agree that we're a long way from bridging the gap between physical phenomena and mental phenomena, in the sense of having a unified theory that incorporates both.

 

[slimvictor]

^ "Expecting no symptoms of consciousness in the absence of neurological activity" - this doesn't work, I think, because it (implicitly) defines symptoms of consciousness as neurological activity, so the definition and the expected results are confounded. Of course you won't get brainwaves to reveal consciousness in the absence of brainwaves!

But, in general, none of the evidence you described is inconsistent with the hypothesis that consciousness and the material world are simply interlinked - they could be mutually interdependent. In fact, we know that manipulating consciousness also affects the physical manifestation of consciousness (or the physical reality underlying the consciousness, if you prefer).

Show someone a scary or pornographic video and watch their heart rate and blood pressure change.

Manipulate the level of pheromones in an environment at a level unavailable to the conscious mind and watch the hormones secreted reflect this.

Intersperse a commercial with subliminal messages and watch the amazing effects on behavior.

Mind and brain (or body and "spirit", or the tangible and intangible facets of a being) are certainly related, but causation/priority is not truly spoken to by any evidence I am aware of, other than to suggest that they control one another - that is, they are mutually interdependent.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

So these things are pretty strong evidence that the brain causes consciousness.

While I'll grant that this shows that the brain plays an indispensable role in creating the conscious experience (trust me, I've been over a LOT of stroke cases that took out chunks of the brain), it still leaves open the possibility that the physical brain we can objectively measure isn't the whole story.

The important part of the causal theory is that it produces falsifiable predictions that we really can test, even if we can't directly see consciousness in another being.

I stand corrected on the falsifiability of the original statement.

I agree that we're a long way from bridging the gap between physical phenomena and mental phenomena, in the sense of having a unified theory that incorporates both.

If it's even possible. Or even worth it.

 

[rpm]

Phenomenal consciousness (the experience, qualia, etc.) has certainly not been empirically verified as a mere reduction into "collective electrical activity of the synapses of your brain." Newtonian Networks of Mind which attempts to model consciousness through Newtonian physics, cannot replicate certain features of human consciousness and completely fails in illustrating consciousness as a whole. There have been many theories conjectured and asserted but none empirically verified. The brain is far more intricate and complex than simple interactions between synapses. How would synaptic interactions generate the experience of reality? What about things like intuition? I would certainly concur that consciousness could be considered an emergent property of the physical architecture of the human brain, however, there is no real evidence of exactly what this architecture is.

Although I don't really dissagree with the sentiment - that consciousness is beyond the grasp of science - I want to make two points.

1st I'm pedantic : in what way are current neural models based on Newtonian physics? Perhaps classical, as there has been little effort to bring quantum physics into the equation, but not Newtonian. I mean Newton didn't know what an attractor was, or system in a state of self-organising complexity.

2nd Although I'm not sure this applies to your post, I want to make clear that the majority of people who research these issues talk about neural corrolates, not causation. There is for the most part no claim in psychology or neuroscience that brain states cause mind states. It's the philosophers who do that.

 

[Mr Wobble]

The problem with science has always been that most scientists believe that science must be done within a […] monistic framework […] based on the primacy of matter. […] quantum physics showed us that we must change that myopic prejudice of scientists, otherwise we cannot comprehend quantum physics. So now we have science within consciousness, a new paradigm of science based on the primacy of consciousness that is gradually replacing the old materialist science

This "new paradigm of science based on the primacy of consciousness" is only the case if one accepts the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, i.e. the one in which Schrodinger's Cat remains in a superposition of dead/alive states until a conscious observer causes a collapse of the superposition.

There are other interpretations of QM that don't require such a link between conscious observation as a special cause and wave function collapse - and, boring though it may be, I'm more inclined to believe a mundane explanation over one that suggests a mystical connection between consciousness and matter.

And re: "The problem with science has always been that most scientists believe that science must be done within a […] monistic framework", why is that a problem?

 

[rpm]

And re: "The problem with science has always been that most scientists believe that science must be done within a […] monistic framework", why is that a problem?

Because the many problems with identity theory, or funtionalism for that matter. Zombie worlds (chalmers), argument from knowledge (many people), chinease mind (ned block) ect. I'm not going to explain each of these as I assume you know them (if not a google search will suffice.

In terms of the viability of quntum conscionsess there is a verry good two part review from brain reserarch that I posted in the science and technology thread which you might be interested in. It for the most part ends saying that it doesn't work tho, so you may be right about that avenue.

 

[Heuristic]

^ "Expecting no symptoms of consciousness in the absence of neurological activity" - this doesn't work, I think, because it (implicitly) defines symptoms of consciousness as neurological activity, so the definition and the expected results are confounded. Of course you won't get brainwaves to reveal consciousness in the absence of brainwaves!

By symptoms of consciousness, I mean certain types of physical actions that are best explained by the existence of consciousness. If we hypothesize that the brain causes consciousness, we would expect those physical actions not to be present when the brain has stopped functioning. And that's the case.

But, in general, none of the evidence you described is inconsistent with the hypothesis that consciousness and the material world are simply interlinked - they could be mutually interdependent. In fact, we know that manipulating consciousness also affects the physical manifestation of consciousness (or the physical reality underlying the consciousness, if you prefer).

The question though is not whether the evidence is logically consistent or inconsistent with certain theories, but whether the theories explain the evidence equally well. If one theory does a better job at explanation, then that's the one we ought to prefer.

Regarding mutual interdependence, what would that mean exactly?

Show someone a scary or pornographic video and watch their heart rate and blood pressure change.

Manipulate the level of pheromones in an environment at a level unavailable to the conscious mind and watch the hormones secreted reflect this.

Intersperse a commercial with subliminal messages and watch the amazing effects on behavior.

Mind and brain (or body and "spirit", or the tangible and intangible facets of a being) are certainly related, but causation/priority is not truly spoken to by any evidence I am aware of, other than to suggest that they control one another - that is, they are mutually interdependent.

Well, if an individual loses function in certain parts of the brain, this will often impair mental abilities. I'm not aware of any instance in which "consciousness" somehow restores those parts of the brain. So while we can observe causal relationships running from the physical to the mental, the relationships running in the other direction don't seem to exist.

All the examples you mention (though I disagree that subliminal messages have amazing effects, that's not relevant) can be accounted for under a theory that has the brain causing consciousness. Indeed, certain physiological responses occur before a person ever reports being aware of the stimulus.

This doesn't mean that "you" somehow are not in control of your behavior, but it does mean that "you" are tied inextricably to the operations of your brain.

And ultimately MDAO is right imho, that we cannot rule out the idea that the physical brain isn't the whole story, that there is some other type of entity playing a role.

 

[slimvictor]

By symptoms of consciousness, I mean certain types of physical actions that are best explained by the existence of consciousness. If we hypothesize that the brain causes consciousness, we would expect those physical actions not to be present when the brain has stopped functioning. And that's the case.

I'm afraid that you have lost me here. It seems that your hypothesis - that the brain causes consciousness - and the data - that, in the absence of brain function, physical actions cease - are lacking a crucial link. What, exactly, are you claiming is the relationship between consciousness and physical functions? Are you saying that you expect consciousness to control physical actions, and the brain (which seems to me to control physical actions) to control consciousness? If so, it seems very circular.

The question though is not whether the evidence is logically consistent or inconsistent with certain theories, but whether the theories explain the evidence equally well. If one theory does a better job at explanation, then that's the one we ought to prefer.

That is exactly what I was saying. By "not inconsistent with", I meant that the hypothesis does an equally good job explaining the data. There is no reason that I can think of to prefer one over the other, given the observable data.

Regarding mutual interdependence, what would that mean exactly?

Simply that consciousness depends on the brain as much as the brain depends on consciousness.

Well, if an individual loses function in certain parts of the brain, this will often impair mental abilities. I'm not aware of any instance in which "consciousness" somehow restores those parts of the brain. So while we can observe causal relationships running from the physical to the mental, the relationships running in the other direction don't seem to exist.

You seem to be assuming something unstated here.
If the brain and mind/consciousness are mutually interdependent, taking out part of the brain takes out the corresponding "part of consciousness".
There is no reason why we should need to see a miraculous recovery in order to support the idea that brain and mind are mutually interdependent.
The causal relationships I exemplified showed that changes in consciousness result in physical changes. Though my examples described changes in blood pressure, heart rate, etc., I think we are safe in assuming that there are corresponding changes in the brain. This was my answer to your evidence that physical changes result in changes in consciousness.

All the examples you mention (though I disagree that subliminal messages have amazing effects, that's not relevant) can be accounted for under a theory that has the brain causing consciousness. Indeed, certain physiological responses occur before a person ever reports being aware of the stimulus.

My examples were meant to show that changes in consciousness result in physical changes, as I said above. It is true that "certain physiological responses occur before a person ever reports being aware of the stimulus". But does this mean that you assume that the brain is the mediator for all perceptual (and, presumably, conceptual) stimulus? If so, you are assuming that brain controls mind, in an effort to show that brain controls mind. Why not instead consider the possibility that the stimulus causes an emotional/consciousness-based reaction, which then affects the body? Though I am aware that we begin to react physically to some stimuli before they consciously register, I don't know that an emotional stimulus would make my brain, and not my mind/consciousness, react first.
Maybe this is because of this; even unconscious thought should be considered part of mind/consciousness, I would argue, since it is the abstract manifestation we are referring to by such a term, not the physical level of electrochemical behavior that we might say is the manifestation of thinking in the brain.

And ultimately MDAO is right imho, that we cannot rule out the idea that the physical brain isn't the whole story, that there is some other type of entity playing a role.

This is what I am saying as well.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Well, if an individual loses function in certain parts of the brain, this will often impair mental abilities. I'm not aware of any instance in which "consciousness" somehow restores those parts of the brain. So while we can observe causal relationships running from the physical to the mental, the relationships running in the other direction don't seem to exist.

This isn't 100% true. It's medically documented that some stroke and other brain damaged patients have slowly (but in some cases completely) restored mental functions that they've initially lost, without restoring the actual neural tissue that they lost. It's also well documented that willingly exercising certain mental functions and thought patterns regularly will produce measurable physical changes in the brain's form and function over time.

Yes, I'm being a quibbling smartass I'm well aware that's it's very easy to explain both of these phenomena in a way that supports a mind-supervenes-on-brain theory. I only mention this to illustrate that the mind-brain problem is not as settled as a lot of jaunty popular science books might lead one to think.

Also, I should mention that the jury is still out on the presence or absence of neural activity during certain paranormal experiences such as out of body experiences, near death experiences, remote viewing, etc. There are certainly many anecdotal reports suggestive of conscious experience while there should have been no brain activity. But since almost no one who has these sort of experiences can have them on command or predict when they'll happen, designing a study to settle this matter isn't easy. All the debate I've read on it seems to revolve around logically weighing the likelihood of explanations, relative to what we already scientifically know.

I think the reason most prominent neuroscientists have their chips on materialistic monism is because this has practical implications for them; if true, it makes their jobs a whole lot easier. Plus, I think neuroscience is just a field that selects for people who have nothing emotionally invested in a dualistic explanation of the mind -- people predisposed to looking at the sentient human mind coldly and clinically, rather than as something magical and miraculous.

I'm decidedly not one of these people. Color me non-neuroscientist material; I want to believe the mind is more than the brain.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

slimvictor, I thought of a good analogy for all this: Imagine you're driving in your car to go on a trip. It's not exactly accurate to say that your car IS your journey. Nor is it NECESSARILY true that without a car, you have no trip. However, I think we can conclusively say that changes to your car and the way it functions WILL change the nature of your trip!

I'm actually quite partial to the vehicular model of sentient awareness -- the idea that my physical brain is currently serving as a vehicle for something separable, namely my mind. There are some really interesting philosophical arguments for this nature of mind that have come out of the Buddhist tradition, that I've been quite taken by. I encourage anyone interested in taking such a position seriously to check out Tibetan Buddhist literature on the nature of mind.