From Brain to Consciousness to Mind--the biological basis

sounds good to me-i vote for jeeprs to lead the opposition party. that allows me to jump the fence now and then :bigsmile:

@Pepijn - please explain the interaction mechanism of your duality mind model? It seems to be some form of metaphysical model.

Guys - You can do philosophy or science by analogy only up to a point, and only to explain and help clarify complex concepts. So, talking of bees and queen bees etc without attempting to provide details of what the underlying physical reality is, is only of limited use.

Now the real questions are:

1. If we assume a reductionist, material universe, then how do the tiny particles governed by the laws of physics eventually lead to cohesive, coordinated biological living beings thinking and acting with purpose, which are capable of making decisions and experiencing conciousness? Also, how does this reconcile to measurement of consciousness in a brain (the subject is actively describing a concept) where no physical activity is detectable? - see the book The Spiritual Brain
2. If on the other hand we assume that at some point the physics of the tiny particles, in living entities, are governed by certain metaphysical processes that endow that entity with consciousness and coordinated purpose and action, then what / where /how are those metaphysical processes taking place ? and how do these metaphysical proccesses interact with the physical subordinated processes to control it?

Ok. So, that was the easy part. What are the answers? Well, no one knows! I think though that I have framed the right questions.

Hi Jeeprs

It seems to me that the laws of physics adequately explain how matter combines into some order of higher conglomerates for example molecules and where the matter involved is carbon based this can lead to some very complex molecules.

These molecules, once again, based on the laws of physics interact to form other complex molecules which appear to perform function. Not necessarily function that can be shown to serve a higher purpose but nevertheless, these do appear to function all be it mechanistically.

The question then is, whether left long enough, can this process continue developing into ever more complex structures and mechanisms to a point where they become conscious of themselves as a unified entity and self directing? The materilaist, reductionist would argue that this is exactly what happens and that the higher level concepts of consciousness are illusory.

But clearly, this is a cop out. Its a case of the tail wagging the dog because it does not explain how how a self directing entity comes into being but just assumes that it does. And this is what is missing from all explanations. Because, what needs to be demonstrated is how material matter, under the sole laws of physics, progressively develops into higher level physical control processes i.e. conscious self directing mind, which directs the action of other matter (ie motor functions) within its own body and its interactions with the external bodies.

If a physical (non meta physical) explanation is to developed then the above mechanism must be demonstrated. We are far from this at this time I think. It is important that this mechanism should arise naturally from the laws of physics without any external input (ie from beyond physics) as a consequence of the onset of complexity only, because if any external input introduced then by definition it becomes metaphysics.

Where does entelechy and teleology fit into the above picture?

That is not the subject matter of physics. That is chemistry. On that topic, if physics explains everything, why is there chemistry? If chemistry explains everything, why is there biology? If biology explains everything, why is there physiology? And so on. Each level of organisation contains principles which cannot be meaningfully reduced to the level below it. So it is heirarchical. Reductionism tries to ignore all that - but it never works past a certain level of analysis. Reductionism has its uses, but being a philosophy of life is not one of them.







It is pure guesswork, though. It is something that might happen, or we think likely to happen, or perhaps hope did happen, in a way that we might one day be able to understand.



Glad you said that. Take a careful look at Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey. This is not ID or creationist propoganda, and Yockey is presenting a strictly scientific (and philosophical) argument on technical grounds. He is adamant that the origin of 'biological information' carred by DNA cannot be explained by any science we now have.



I think the opposition between 'physical' and 'metaphysical' is far too simplistic. Many of the complexities of apparently very simple things about life, both on the biological and environmental level, defy a simple explanation. A lot of the cultural/scientific attitude towards all these questions is based on overconfidence that we really understand what 'natural' means. A sage once said 'miracles are not contrary to nature, they are contrary to what we know about nature'. But nature is full of surprises. It now looks more surprising, on the whole, than it did last century, I think.



Teleology is a very ancient idea that 'everything has a goal'. It is an Aristotlean idea. In the pre-modern era, it was always assumed that God created everything in its place, and for a purpose, and that everything was working towards that purpose. It is regarded as quaint old-fashioned thinking nowadays. Any idea of purpose is deemed virtually heretical in the scientific community, because by its nature it is a very difficult thing to frame an hypothesis about. But the denial of the idea of purpose turns out to be almost impossible. Have a look at the Wikipedia article on a term called 'teleonomy', which has been suggested as a replacement for the taboo 'teleology'.



---------- Post added 04-06-2010 at 01:31 PM ----------

"entelechy" is a related idea:

1. (Philosophy) (in the philosophy of Aristotle) actuality as opposed to potentiality
2. (Philosophy) (in the system of Leibnitz) the soul or principle of perfection of an object or person; a monad or basic constituent
3. (Philosophy) something that contains or realizes a final cause, esp the vital force thought to direct the life of an organism

Thanks Amer - I see your points and think you are technically quite correct in many ways. I am very glad to be an amateur in these matters.

That is not the subject matter of physics. That is chemistry. On that topic, if physics explains everything, why is there chemistry? If chemistry explains everything, why is there biology? If biology explains everything, why is there physiology? And so on. Each level of organisation contains principles which cannot be meaningfully reduced to the level below it. So it is heirarchical. Reductionism tries to ignore all that - but it never works past a certain level of analysis. Reductionism has its uses, but being a philosophy of life is not one of them.