Mind: emergent property or "Ghost in the machine"?

[Tomk80]

What's even more interesting is that a handful of cells--like seven or eight--can in random situations mimic the basic elements of what we call personality. Shyness, aggression, confusion, sadness, etc. can all result from the right order of feedback from outside stimuli. (This either lends weight to the idea that animals are often over-anthopomized, or more poigniantly, the idea that humans are!)

Trickster

Linky?

 

[Chalnoth]

It's logically unsound to conclude anything on the basis of no information. Science obeys this by not drawing firm conclusions when theories are made and tested. Otherwise, science itself would be proven wrong every time a new theory comes out.

Of course we don't draw conclusions outside of where experiments have tested. But we've also learned from the history of science that pretty much every time we have investigated a new area that has not been previously investigated, our ideas before the experiment turned out to be wrong.

So there is, indeed, strong reason to suggest that there is no spiritual component to the mind: the idea that there is a spiritual component is based upon beliefs that were developed in the absence of evidence, and as such are almost certainly wrong.

This still leaves two possibilities, of course: we're most likely wrong about the nature of the spiritual component, or there being any spiritual component. However, given that today we have lots of reason to believe that all of the properties of the mind can arise out of purely physical processes, the position that there is no spiritual component seems to be the favored position.

Obviously nobody can say with absolute certainty that no soul exists, but that doesn't mean we can't be reasonably confident.

 

[Chalnoth]

Then you know more about the 4 mouse-brainscells that piloted an aircraft simulation? I'd say that's the first set-up for such a simplistic, neuron-based computer (if it is not such a computer in itself already).

Yeah, I heard about that too. Some very cool stuff, but I didn't realize it was just four cells! Anyway, since the human brain is so fantastic at pattern recognition, one might think that using organic networks for pattern recognition might well be a good application. The question is, how do you train the cells to do a specific task?

By the way, link courtesy of Google:
http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/braindish.htm

 

[TricksterWolf]

Linky?

Oh, wow--I just remember that from about 12 years ago when I got my BA in Psych. I have no idea where I could get more info on it, it was in my senior seminar that it was discussed.

Essentially, think about it this way...imagine a fish with a few neurons for a brain. Two or three of them are dedicated to "seeing". Bigger-fish (predators) stimulate the optical sensors in one way, while smaller-fish (prey) stimulate the optical sensors another. The fish hide in a coral reef, and only come out to feed. Depending on the inputs you give the fish and the order in which they occur, it will develop different "habits" of acting, such as conservative (avoidant) exit from the coral, or aggressive exit, or even superstitious behavior (making associations between totally irrelevant stimuli).

The basic idea is just that mental states seen as complex are often easy to duplicate in remarkably simple systems based in part on chance factors. If the system has memory, early factors may even have a stronger effect on behavior (depending on how you set it up).

Trickster

 

[TricksterWolf]

Of course we don't draw conclusions outside of where experiments have tested. But we've also learned from the history of science that pretty much every time we have investigated a new area that has not been previously investigated, our ideas before the experiment turned out to be wrong.

So there is, indeed, strong reason to suggest that there is no spiritual component to the mind: the idea that there is a spiritual component is based upon beliefs that were developed in the absence of evidence, and as such are almost certainly wrong.

This still leaves two possibilities, of course: we're most likely wrong about the nature of the spiritual component, or there being any spiritual component. However, given that today we have lots of reason to believe that all of the properties of the mind can arise out of purely physical processes, the position that there is no spiritual component seems to be the favored position.

Obviously nobody can say with absolute certainty that no soul exists, but that doesn't mean we can't be reasonably confident.

"Spiritual component" isn't an operationally defined phrase. You can't suggest there's evidence that something doesn't exist when it isn't well-defined!

However, you can suggest that something is nonessential, and thus is useless to scientific theory at the present time. I would agree that the mind is like Einstein's ether in that regard, except that there's no evidence of any sort for ether, while there is at least a subjective experience of mind.

Trickster

 

[Chalnoth]

"Spiritual component" isn't an operationally defined phrase. You can't suggest there's evidence that something doesn't exist when it isn't well-defined!

But that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence in favor of one. And from history, any belief that arose in the absence of evidence is likely to be wrong.

 

[TricksterWolf]

But that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence in favor of one. And from history, any belief that arose in the absence of evidence is likely to be wrong.

Like the Theory of Relativity? There was zero empirical evidence in favor of it when Einstein first postulated it.

Trickster

 

[Chalnoth]

Like the Theory of Relativity? There was zero empirical evidence in favor of it when Einstein first postulated it.

Not true. Before the theory of special relativity was proposed, there were experiments that seemed to indicate that the speed of light was independent of the observer, and there was reason to believe from the knowledge of electricity and magnetism that the speed of light might be independent of observer. Einstein just had the insight to explain these things in what now is the obvious way: the speed of light is independent of observer.

And once the special theory of relativity was proposed, it was obvious to everybody that there must be a more general theory that would deal with accelerating reference frames. Again, Einstein had the insight to claim that there was no difference between an accelerated reference frame and one under the influence of a gravitational field.

It took quite some time to work out the math properly for this general theory, but long before it was done, there was a known problem with the orbit of Mercury. Einstein showed that his theory of general relativity explained the observed orbit.

Now, it is amazing that these theories have proven to be so correct on such little evidence, but it seems like the primary reason why they have been so successful is due to the mathematical beauty of the theories. Mathematics, it seems, describes our universe to an unreasonable degree of accuracy.

So no, I still claim that we are usually wrong when we move into a new region of observation.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Not true. Before the theory of special relativity was proposed, there were experiments that seemed to indicate that the speed of light was independent of the observer, and there was reason to believe from the knowledge of electricity and magnetism that the speed of light might be independent of observer. Einstein just had the insight to explain these things in what now is the obvious way: the speed of light is independent of observer.

And once the special theory of relativity was proposed, it was obvious to everybody that there must be a more general theory that would deal with accelerating reference frames. Again, Einstein had the insight to claim that there was no difference between an accelerated reference frame and one under the influence of a gravitational field.

It took quite some time to work out the math properly for this general theory, but long before it was done, there was a known problem with the orbit of Mercury. Einstein showed that his theory of general relativity explained the observed orbit.

Now, it is amazing that these theories have proven to be so correct on such little evidence, but it seems like the primary reason why they have been so successful is due to the mathematical beauty of the theories. Mathematics, it seems, describes our universe to an unreasonable degree of accuracy.

So no, I still claim that we are usually wrong when we move into a new region of observation.

I don't agree...but there are many other examples. Black holes were theorized and predicted decades before any empirical proof existed. Many scientific models today are purely mathematical and observation-independent.

I think this is a bit off-topic, and possibly at an impasse. You claim it's logical to assume that there is no soul, while I claim it's only logical to assume nothing. You may cling freely to your belief; therein lies the beauty of choice.

Trickster

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't agree...but there are many other examples. Black holes were theorized and predicted decades before any empirical proof existed. Many scientific models today are purely mathematical and observation-independent.

Well, right. But in every case where a prediction has been made before any experiments were done, that prediction was couched on simple mathematical principles connecting the later experiment with earlier ones. For example, there was some reason to believe that black holes existed, because the extremely simple theory of general relativity predicted them, and general relativity was consistent with the much better-tested special relativity, and properly predicted the only known thing (at the time) that Newton's gravity didn't predict: Mercury's orbit.

Even with mathematical guidance, however, the number of times when we have been right about future observations have been very few indeed. And with metaphysics, we don't even have mathematical guidance to lean upon. So the likelihood of being wrong increases many fold, based upon past experience.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Well, right. But in every case where a prediction has been made before any experiments were done, that prediction was couched on simple mathematical principles connecting the later experiment with earlier ones. For example, there was some reason to believe that black holes existed, because the extremely simple theory of general relativity predicted them, and general relativity was consistent with the much better-tested special relativity, and properly predicted the only known thing (at the time) that Newton's gravity didn't predict: Mercury's orbit.

Even with mathematical guidance, however, the number of times when we have been right about future observations have been very few indeed. And with metaphysics, we don't even have mathematical guidance to lean upon. So the likelihood of being wrong increases many fold, based upon past experience.

But this is an area into which science isn't, in my subjective opinion, likely to intrude at any point in our lives. The mind is high on the list of inscrutables as far as direct observation is concerned. I say the existence of the soul (or not) is fair game for faith.

Trickster

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, that is true. If a person can rationalize the existence of a soul despite current evidence on the variety of physical changes to the brain that can affect personality so dramatically, then that person is unlikely to ever be convinced. However, it leads to disturbing moral questions in the potential event of a future artificial intelligence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since you yourself said no evidence of a soul exists, and since we have much evidence the brain exists and that the mind is directly dependent on the state of the brain, why would we have any reason to posit that the brain is part of something we have no reason to think exists at all???

I should have said that no phsical evidence exists.

What evidence do we have that the mind is directly dependent on the state of the brain? Please provide that evidence and show how the brain can function without our subjective inputs...i.e. our experience of self.

The mind(conciousness, the"I") is entirely dependent on the brain. If the brain is damaged or parts removed we can predict in advance the parts of the mind that will be affected. If the brain is damaged beyond a certain point the mind ceases to exist altogether.

As Tricksterwolf said, we can only guess at this time what will happen. When the mind ceases to exist altogether is that person alive? How do you empirically substanciate that the mind eeases to exist? Please support that conclusion.

Therefore the conciousness is a product of the brains activity, they are inseperable and the "mind" has no seperate existence. Duality can therefore not be true, otherwise this brain/mind relationship would not be true.

How do you determine that conciousness is a product of the brains activity rather than the brain activity is the product of conciousness?

Where does the "soul" come into the picture??? Nowhere, there is absolutely no reason to think it exists.

There are reasons to think that there is a soul. Near death experiences are one researched area that supports the soul.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not unscientific. Evolution has mountains of scientific evidence to support it, as well it should. The evidence to support monism is also valid scientific evidence, but it's much more limited as it is based in the underlying premise that the behavior we can measure is more or less an exact representation of the mind; it says virtually nothing about how the mind actually works. The evidence for monism simply shows that brain change --> behavior change, which doesn't seem to have much to do with consciousness itself.

To base evidence on a premise that is not shown to be conclusive does little to insure probability. As you say, it says little about the mind and how it actually functions.

As for evolution--I think it's possible to be a scientist and not believe in it 100%. I'm not completely certain of how we came about, myself. Evolution is very compelling, and it's probably correct...but there's still more to the process of natural selection than currently we understand. I should add, though, that this doesn't mean it's wrong--in fact, it'd be more suspicious if a theory on something so complex could explain everything away.

You are missing my point. I wasn't claiming that evolution was wrong per se, I was responding to your statement:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TricksterWolf
I think it's fine to believe in the soul, but a mistake to try to back up belief with facts...this commonly leads to unscientific thinking.

I was claiming that Darwin was trying to back up his belief that evolution was behind nature's diversity. How else does one back up a hypothesis if not with facts?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't think this is true. Life isn't suddenly meaningless if we have a deterministic brain, because we still can't know the outcome. As long as outcomes are hidden from us, we're not simply "going through the motions", and our decisions actually matter.

Trickster

Matter to whom? It doesn't matter that we are simply living life the only way we can and have no choice in who we spend that life with and what we do with it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived



Sorry, this is just gobbledegoop. A sufficiently complex system is no longer predictable(deterministic) given a specific input(even our computer programmers know this, and the brain is several hundreds of orders of magnitude more sophisticated(and therefore complex) than the biggest computer). If you have one yes/no gate you have two possible outputs, 2 gives you 4, 4 gives you 16... So each layer of gates gives you an exponential increase of outcomes. Our brain uses neurons with HUNDREDS of possible outcomes each so each layer gives you 10,000 different outputs for each input. Learning is the narrowing down of those outputs to those that give the best results, but they are far from predictable(and therefore far from just a robotic response). Thankfully we have the benefit of millions of years of self programing to control these myriad responses or all would be chaos(as in autism). Just because it is all just physical effects in no way limits the emergence of conciousness or any other observed phenomina.

Grumpy

Where is conciousness in the brain. What part of the brain contains conciousness? How did conciousness emerge?

 

[Oncedeceived]

People who had electroshock therapy, like Pirsig, do not agree. They say the old "I" is gone and a new "I" is there. Sure, they will have some shared personality characteristics, because not the whole brain is damaged. We only have partly damaged people to work from, because a wholly damaged brain means only one thing, death.

Can we provide evidence that the old "I" of Pirsig is gone? How can we quantify that premise? That is the problem with maintaining that the brain is only materialistic; we can't go inside the brain of this man and see two personalities separate from one another. We do not know that the "I" changed to another "I" just because Pirsig claims it to be so. That is subjective and can not be empirically tested.

That we can disagree does not suddenly mean the evidence does not exist. I have yet to see you present evidence for the existence of a mind/brain duality, other than some vague references to the 'I'. That's fun, but it is not evidence.

I don't see any evidence that you have provided in your defense either. Your examples such as the one above can not be evaluated by others.

The bolded part is the point I'm making. There is no evidence for a soul, hence I have no reason to think a soul exists.

No physical evidence, but not parts of our brain can be said to be physical..such as our subjective experiences.

Why would I believe something for which there is no evidence?

You believe many things that have no physical evidence.

 

[Tomk80]

Matter to whom?

To us and to others.

It doesn't matter that we are simply living life the only way we can and have no choice in who we spend that life with and what we do with it?

We do have a choice, we make choices every day. That is his point. Sure, maybe those choices are deterministic, but if this is so, the process behind it is hidden from us.

On the other hand, I do not think that this determinism is such a big deal, because we do not choose ad random in the first place. We choose because of preferences and what we know and do not know. I don't think choice is indeterministic in the first place. Or are your choices just random?

 

[Tomk80]

Can we provide evidence that the old "I" of Pirsig is gone? How can we quantify that premise? That is the problem with maintaining that the brain is only materialistic; we can't go inside the brain of this man and see two personalities separate from one another. We do not know that the "I" changed to another "I" just because Pirsig claims it to be so. That is subjective and can not be empirically tested.

True, but it does mean that the subjective evidence you claim to have is gainsaid by others who have actually experienced things like electroshock therapy.

I don't see any evidence that you have provided in your defense either. Your examples such as the one above can not be evaluated by others.

Some can, some cannot. The evidence that can be evaluated are things like speech problems, memory problems and problems that show personality change. These can be verified by others, have been, and can be shown to be related to disfunctions or damages to the brain.

The subjective evidence of the "Self" being constant can be challenged by people who gainsay this.

As I have said before, all the things that are used to descrive the 'self', all the things you mentioned, be it personality, memory, continuity etc etc, can be shown to change or disappear if the brain is damaged. You have yet to bring anything against this. Since the whole is made up of the parts, if all the individual parts are shown to be affected by damage to the brain, the whole is probably the brain itself. It is the most logical conclusion given the evidence.

No physical evidence, but not parts of our brain can be said to be physical..such as our subjective experiences.

Like. Name some specific ones.

You believe many things that have no physical evidence.

Of course. But if someone states that he does not have any reason to believe them because I have no physical evidence for it, I also don't deny that.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Well, that is true. If a person can rationalize the existence of a soul despite current evidence on the variety of physical changes to the brain that can affect personality so dramatically, then that person is unlikely to ever be convinced. However, it leads to disturbing moral questions in the potential event of a future artificial intelligence.

Many rational people of faith (they exist!) have no difficulty adapting to a changing moral landscape. There are people who believe in God that wouldn't skip a beat if we found sapient life on Europa or created a true AI.

But yeah, some people would drop a brick...

Trickster