The idea of the perfect circle, exists in the mind...
So where do they exist?
"Consciousness is the Ground of All Being!" (QM -Copenhagen interpretation)
So I've always been curious as to why some people subscribe to the idea that the mind and brain are not connected. This has always puzzled me because I haven't really seen good, if any, evidence that the two are separate. Now, obviously from an ontological perspective the mind and brain are distinct but to go further and claim that the mind doesn't correspond to the brain seems unwarranted, to say the least. The opposing view (that the mind and brain are connected) seems quite obvious to me and I'll show why...
First example in support comes from everyday experience that anyone can test and experiment with, and that would be trauma of the brain. If you've ever been hit in the head really hard loss of consciousness can ensue. Now you may not want to be the test subject behind that particular experiment so a more painless way of testing this would be to play the 'pass-out game', which I'm sure most of you have heard of. All you do is breath really hard for about 30 seconds then have someone press against you neck to cut off circulation to your brain and tadah! you lose consciousness and pass-out.
Now the more serious examples come from neuroscience and neurosurgery. As unpleasant as it sounds, neurosurgery is conducted under local rather than general anesthesia because the brain lacks pain receptors, which means the subject is still awake when operated on. Stimulation of the brain led neurosurgery to considerable knowledge for mapping the functions of the brain. Localization of brain function began in the 1800s by Paul Brocawho connected language functions to the brain. Electrical stimulation of the motor cortex, performed by Fritsch and Hitzig, in rabbit and dog brain produced movement in the animals which furthered localization of functions within the brain. Additionally, neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield contributed a great deal of our understanding of the mapping of the brain. This list goes on and on, and such knowledge and understanding of the brain has produced ground-breaking machines like BCI's.
Finally, and I hope I'm not preaching to the choir when I say this, but look at drugs. If you still don't think the mind and brain are connected then why would neurotransmitters released and received in your synaptic gap cause distortion to your perception? Again, the connection seems obvious to me, but for those who prefer to avoid the razor the assumptions increase exponentially.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alternative views:
Dualism which has been made famous by Descartes is the idea that there are two fundamental substances to reality--the physical and non-physical-and the non-physical mind (or consciousness or soul) should be distinguished from the brain. This led Descartes to believe that the mind could not only exist independent from the body but also that the pineal gland was the 'seat of the soul'.
Now the problem with this view is pretty much everything. First, the pineal gland is a light sensitive organ that releases melatonin and helps regulate your circadian rhythm. If the pineal gland was the place where 'it all came together' and is the 'seat of the soul' then this Cartesian Theater is easily shown fallacious by Daniel Dennett and is no better than the Homunculus Argument. To put it briefly, this view leads to an ad infinitum dilemma. The second problem comes from the interactionist perspective: How can a non-physical mind, that can exist independent of the body, interact with the physical at all? This problem still plagues the dualist's position.
Epiphenomenalism is another form of dualism in that it tries to solve the interactionist problem by posing that the mind cannot and does not interact with not only the brain/body but nothing at all! One can already see the flaws in this point of view in that we know that the mind affects the body. Intentionality, the placebo effect and neural plasticity are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head. Also this claim does us no good in finding out a way to validate it because it is by definition outside of science. It would be just as equivalent if I claimed that there were 6 epiphenomenal gremlins in the cylinders of my car and since they dont interact with the car it would be as if they werent even there... See, there would be no way to falsify that claim. (Kudos to Dennett for that example). Epiphenomenalism and dualism can be re-stated as the 'ghost in the machine' which is not only fallacious but stops us in our tracks in continuing research.
Quantum Mind is the new-age theory that everyone seems to be conforming to. This is understandable because QM is very interesting and quite mind-blowing which leads a lot of pseudo-philosophers and 'scientists' to make radical claims that quantum mechanics has an important role in consciousness. It's also an attempt to 'save the soul' as some would say (aka Hameroff). However, the idea that the micro can affect the macro on such large scales as brain structures and neurons is utterly incoherent with little or no evidence in support. Entanglement is often cited as correlated with cellular activity but even if that were true diffusion and action potentials, which is the main mechanism for transferring information between neurons, would destroy superposition. "At the cellular level, the interaction of neurons is governed by classical physics." (Koch and Hepp 2006).
The 'Mereological Fallacy of Neuroscience' is a somewhat recent idea put forth by Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker which claims that neuroscientists are making conceptual mistakes about their findings. It goes a little further than that but that is the main idea being promoted by them. As much as I wanted to agree with them, and I do think they hit on some important topics, their claims were just as ridiculous as the former examples. Instead of contributing to the problem of consciousness they push it farther away, "The brain is not an organ of consciousness." (Hacker and Bennett). Well then where is consciousness located exactly? The best they could come up with is, "The location of the event of a person's thinking a certain thought is the place where the person is when the thought occurs to him." (Hacker and Bennett). Searle notices the same absurdness when he equates B and H's statement to: thoughts are occuring somewhere in this room. Again we arent progessing with theses types of views.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I've written enough. The main point of all this is to show that we need to treat consciousness as a biological problem, as Koch would say, because otherwise we are left with random claims that cannot be validated or falsified which in turn only impedes our progress at reaching our goal. Although, I'm only interested in the truth so if anyone has any good evidence that the brain and mind are not connected then by all means show. I'll be waiting but I doubt I'll be getting much responses. Thanks for reading.
So isn't our consciousness perceived too... by our consciousness, or so it would seem.
Are you refuting the obviousness that consciousness is emergent since how can something be emergent if it grounds all being.
I think assigning a ground to anything only begs for a paradox, unless this quote is meant to be taken a little less literally.
Some philosophers just don't want the mystery of consciousness to be solved, but I think it was solved a long time ago. We still have more to learn about the functions of the brain, but I believe that we've learned enough to come to a positive conclusion that the mind and the brain are one and the same.
There is no 'our' Consciousness. It is 'Consciousness' that does the perceiving.
What is 'obvious' is that the sun orbits the earth, that the earth is flat and that the world is full of light and color whether we close our eyes or not. If something is 'obvious', that is pretty good evidence that, from a scientific or critically thoughtful Perspective,. it is incorrect.
I, and science, seem to be refuting that "consciousness is emergent", especially as there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of said emergency.
But it identifies with the role consciousness has on the system which I doubt can be refuted.
So when you are saying that you and science are refuting the possibility that consciousness is emergent, well what 'actual' aspects are there to be refuted?
What is 'obvious' is that the sun orbits the earth, . . .
Sorry, I'm not understanding your intended meaning. What does 'actual' mean in this reference? 'Actual' aspects of what, 'Consciousness'?
The best they could come up with is, "The location of the event of a person's thinking a certain thought is the place where the person is when the thought occurs to him." (Hacker and Bennett). Searle notices the same absurdness when he equates B and H's statement to: thoughts are occuring somewhere in this room. Again we arent progessing with theses types of views.
A foreigner visiting Oxford or Cambridge for the first time is shown a number of colleges, libraries, playing fields, museums, scientific departments and administrative offices. He then asks 'But where is the University? I have seen where the members of the colleges live, where the Registrar works, where the scientists experiment and the rest. But I have not yet seen the University in which reside and work the members of your University.' It has then to be explained to him that the University is not another collateral institution, some ulterior counterpart to the colleges, labratories and offices which he has seen. The University is just the way in which all that he has already seen is organized.
So I've always been curious as to why some people subscribe to the idea that the mind and brain are not connected. This has always puzzled me because I haven't really seen good, if any, evidence that the two are separate. Now, obviously from an ontological perspective the mind and brain are distinct but to go further and claim that the mind doesn't correspond to the brain seems unwarranted, to say the least. The opposing view (that the mind and brain are connected) seems quite obvious to me and I'll show why...
First example in support comes from everyday experience that anyone can test and experiment with, and that would be trauma of the brain. If you've ever been hit in the head really hard loss of consciousness can ensue. Now you may not want to be the test subject behind that particular experiment so a more painless way of testing this would be to play the 'pass-out game', which I'm sure most of you have heard of. All you do is breath really hard for about 30 seconds then have someone press against you neck to cut off circulation to your brain and tadah! you lose consciousness and pass-out.
Now the more serious examples come from neuroscience and neurosurgery. As unpleasant as it sounds, neurosurgery is conducted under local rather than general anesthesia because the brain lacks pain receptors, which means the subject is still awake when operated on. Stimulation of the brain led neurosurgery to considerable knowledge for mapping the functions of the brain. Localization of brain function began in the 1800s by Paul Brocawho connected language functions to the brain. Electrical stimulation of the motor cortex, performed by Fritsch and Hitzig, in rabbit and dog brain produced movement in the animals which furthered localization of functions within the brain. Additionally, neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield contributed a great deal of our understanding of the mapping of the brain. This list goes on and on, and such knowledge and understanding of the brain has produced ground-breaking machines like BCI's.
Finally, and I hope I'm not preaching to the choir when I say this, but look at drugs. If you still don't think the mind and brain are connected then why would neurotransmitters released and received in your synaptic gap cause distortion to your perception? Again, the connection seems obvious to me, but for those who prefer to avoid the razor the assumptions increase exponentially.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alternative views:
Dualism which has been made famous by Descartes is the idea that there are two fundamental substances to reality--the physical and non-physical-and the non-physical mind (or consciousness or soul) should be distinguished from the brain. This led Descartes to believe that the mind could not only exist independent from the body but also that the pineal gland was the 'seat of the soul'.
Now the problem with this view is pretty much everything. First, the pineal gland is a light sensitive organ that releases melatonin and helps regulate your circadian rhythm. If the pineal gland was the place where 'it all came together' and is the 'seat of the soul' then this Cartesian Theater is easily shown fallacious by Daniel Dennett and is no better than the Homunculus Argument. To put it briefly, this view leads to an ad infinitum dilemma. The second problem comes from the interactionist perspective: How can a non-physical mind, that can exist independent of the body, interact with the physical at all? This problem still plagues the dualist's position.
Epiphenomenalism is another form of dualism in that it tries to solve the interactionist problem by posing that the mind cannot and does not interact with not only the brain/body but nothing at all! One can already see the flaws in this point of view in that we know that the mind affects the body. Intentionality, the placebo effect and neural plasticity are just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head. Also this claim does us no good in finding out a way to validate it because it is by definition outside of science. It would be just as equivalent if I claimed that there were 6 epiphenomenal gremlins in the cylinders of my car and since they dont interact with the car it would be as if they werent even there... See, there would be no way to falsify that claim. (Kudos to Dennett for that example). Epiphenomenalism and dualism can be re-stated as the 'ghost in the machine' which is not only fallacious but stops us in our tracks in continuing research.
Quantum Mind is the new-age theory that everyone seems to be conforming to. This is understandable because QM is very interesting and quite mind-blowing which leads a lot of pseudo-philosophers and 'scientists' to make radical claims that quantum mechanics has an important role in consciousness. It's also an attempt to 'save the soul' as some would say (aka Hameroff). However, the idea that the micro can affect the macro on such large scales as brain structures and neurons is utterly incoherent with little or no evidence in support. Entanglement is often cited as correlated with cellular activity but even if that were true diffusion and action potentials, which is the main mechanism for transferring information between neurons, would destroy superposition. "At the cellular level, the interaction of neurons is governed by classical physics." (Koch and Hepp 2006).
The 'Mereological Fallacy of Neuroscience' is a somewhat recent idea put forth by Maxwell Bennett and Peter Hacker which claims that neuroscientists are making conceptual mistakes about their findings. It goes a little further than that but that is the main idea being promoted by them. As much as I wanted to agree with them, and I do think they hit on some important topics, their claims were just as ridiculous as the former examples. Instead of contributing to the problem of consciousness they push it farther away, "The brain is not an organ of consciousness." (Hacker and Bennett). Well then where is consciousness located exactly? The best they could come up with is, "The location of the event of a person's thinking a certain thought is the place where the person is when the thought occurs to him." (Hacker and Bennett). Searle notices the same absurdness when he equates B and H's statement to: thoughts are occuring somewhere in this room. Again we arent progessing with theses types of views.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I've written enough. The main point of all this is to show that we need to treat consciousness as a biological problem, as Koch would say, because otherwise we are left with random claims that cannot be validated or falsified which in turn only impedes our progress at reaching our goal. Although, I'm only interested in the truth so if anyone has any good evidence that the brain and mind are not connected then by all means show. I'll be waiting but I doubt I'll be getting much responses. Thanks for reading.
Let me bring this exchange to a close by assuring you that I don't believe in anything supernatural, I have a solid understanding of physics and biology, and I accept the powerful role physicalness plays in the human experience. In other words, nothing you have said explaining the effects of the brain on consciousness would I dispute.
Quote from Gospel of Thomas #59
"And for any who tend to think that by lowering conscious level (in other words, thinning the state of consciousness) the brain is able to pick up information carrying particles that are not a part of any physical matter or energy that cannot be picked up at any other time (for whatever strange reason) and store them in the bio-molecular chemical synthesis which is required to form memories"....KJ
okay, let me try and form a question for you.
suppose thoughts were the same as light waves or sound waves in the sense that though they are not physical, they have some form, whether you want to call them energy or what. in fact, that is what i thought they were, rather than impulses generated by or in the brain (either primarily or secondarily as a result of some stimulus to a part of the organism) that travel along the nerves. in fact, why cant thoughts be both?
in that case they could be picked up out of the air if you had the appropriate receiver-i mean why not? science may some day invent one-great tool in the war against terror-but i think the brain may be that receiver. we just dont know how to use it.
and you seem to be swayed by the idea that one would have to alter their state of consciousness before that would happen-so imagine then that it might happen in any normal or abnormal state of consciousness-awake, dreaming, alpha, theta, beta, whatever you want to call all the conditions known to science. but that would be abominable, we couldnt manage if we could hear every thought there was, past present and future, from anywhere on the planet, etc. so there would have to be a filter of sorts to keep them in the waiting room so to speak. then based on their importance they would be allowed to enter or shown the door.
maybe that is the reason for people hearing talk in their heads that no one else hears and science says it is only going on in their brain. maybe there is a mechanism that is not operating that is supposed to keep that noise in another area of consciousness (or the brain, whichever way you want to look at it).
obviously reaching a certain state of consciousness if you receive impressions or hear thoughts...how would you know whose they were? how would you know if they were genuine or some trick being played on you by a short circuit in your brain? i think if you could compare what you heard with what other people say they heard when they reach the same level of consciousness would be most useful. if you hear and sense the same thing that hundreds of other people have heard, since ages ago as well in the present day, and in all sorts of different civilizations-wouldnt you rather suspect it might be coming from somewhere else other than the brain that sits in your own skull?
so my question to you is, do you believe anything i have said in this post is impossible in the light of the working of the brain as you know it? i hope you can forgive my lack of knowledge of technical terms and if my analogies are faulty, please explain to me.
