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

[Chalnoth]

This is only an argument against the soul if you see the soul as an immutable source of personality, which I doubt many people do. That would be a rather absurd proposition, given that people's personalities change predictably under select circumstances--brain disease, severe emotional distress, and chemical intervention, for three.

Well, just bear in mind that this is christianforums.com, and so when we are talking about religious issues, we are usually talking about the Christian perspective on those issues.

And the Christian perspective is that the soul is immortal while the body is not, that after we die our souls go on to either heaven or hell. Thus, in the Christian view of a soul, the soul is what makes a person a person: the soul contains the personality.

If you're willing to accept a different definition, the argument obviously changes. I claim that the argument, "there might be a soul," is pointless unless you define the soul. And I claim, as you seem to also claim, that the Christian definition of a soul is ruled out.

 

[TricksterWolf]

Well, just bear in mind that this is christianforums.com, and so when we are talking about religious issues, we are usually talking about the Christian perspective on those issues.

And the Christian perspective is that the soul is immortal while the body is not, that after we die our souls go on to either heaven or hell. Thus, in the Christian view of a soul, the soul is what makes a person a person: the soul contains the personality.

If you're willing to accept a different definition, the argument obviously changes. I claim that the argument, "there might be a soul," is pointless unless you define the soul. And I claim, as you seem to also claim, that the Christian definition of a soul is ruled out.

Well, I agree that personality clearly isn't immutable, but I disagree that your definition of the soul is the same as most Christians. There's more than likely a lot of apologetics on the essentialism of personality and the soul, as many Christians like to back up their beliefs with some form of logic--and it seems clear that personality is mutable by outside factors.

It's not fair for me to speak up for other peoples' beliefs, though. I once had a teacher who believed that unbaptized babies eternally roast in Hell to the delight of God, so from my perspective as an outsider, people can believe in practically anything. My own personal beliefs are playfully illogical as well.

Trickster

 

[Grummpy]

My, my folks, I leave for 24 hours and have to read 4 pages to keep up!!!

Tricksterwolf

This is exactly my point. Assertions of any sort about the nature of consciousness are invariably made on the basis of one's own experience of consciousness, since we don't have access to one anothers'. I don't think that "consciousness is a simple emergent property" is something that can be scientifically proposed when the property itself can't even be scientifically observed. The default is simply "we don't know what consciousness is".

I disagree, we know what conciousness is, where it resides, the type of damage the mind receives if the brain is damaged in certain areas, we can measure the brain activity associated with certain thoughts, we can tell if conciousness is missing by the lack of activity in the brain(even if the body is still living(Terri Schivo)), there are many things we can say about the mind that show it to exist in the activities of the brain. We need very much more capable equipment before we can "read" minds directly, but in principle it is doable.

Bottom line is that all the functions of the mind are directly attributable to the physical activities of the brain. As pieces of the brain are damaged or removed(due to accident or disease) those parts of the mind specifically associated with those pieces disappear. Mind is not a seperate entity, it is a physical property of the brain.

As to the concept of a soul, no physical evidence of it's existence has been found.

Grumpy

 

[peck74]

My own personal beliefs are playfully illogical as well.
Trickster

Mine too. I don't want you to divulge your personal beliefs, but you must have some theories (maybe even "illogical" ones?) about consciousness/mind. If you had to guess, what would you say it is?

 

[peck74]

My, my folks, I leave for 24 hours and have to read 4 pages to keep up!!!

Tricksterwolf



I disagree, we know what conciousness is, where it resides, the type of damage the mind receives if the brain is damaged in certain areas, we can measure the brain activity associated with certain thoughts, we can tell if conciousness is missing by the lack of activity in the brain(even if the body is still living(Terri Schivo)), there are many things we can say about the mind that show it to exist in the activities of the brain. We need very much more capable equipment before we can "read" minds directly, but in principle it is doable.
Grumpy

Hi Grummpy,
This isn’t a “scientific” response, nor do I intend it to be. When the brain is damaged, function can be lost, and it seems a logical conclusion to say brain = mind, although no hard evidence exists to back that up, since the “mind” cannot be identified, but we do have our logical conclusions. Much work has been done to locate the “consciousness center” in the brain, but without success. Anyway, if you accept mind = brain, how do you explain so-called psychic-phenomena, such as near death experiences? The only response I have seen is to discredit people (call them crazy) who claim to experience it, or claim that it is some type of dying brain activity, hence the light and tunnel, and just forget about those who had hellish NDE’s, or those that can describe events that took place after their "death". Now, to someone who has never experienced any of this first hand, it’s easy to dismiss it, but to those who have experienced an NDE, or any type of "vision”, it’s quite another story. I think there’s no way to claim right now that mind is brain and case-closed. There are simply too many loose ends.

 

[Grummpy]

peck74

Hi Grummpy,
This isn’t a “scientific” response, nor do I intend it to be. When the brain is damaged, function can be lost, and it seems a logical conclusion to say brain = mind, although no hard evidence exists to back that up, since the “mind” cannot be identified, but we do have our logical conclusions. Much work has been done to locate the “consciousness center” in the brain, but without success. Anyway, if you accept mind = brain, how do you explain so-called psychic-phenomena, such as near death experiences? The only response I have seen is to discredit people (call them crazy) who claim to experience it, or claim that it is some type of dying brain activity, hence the light and tunnel, and just forget about those who had hellish NDE’s, or those that can describe events that took place after their "death". Now, to someone who has never experienced any of this first hand, it’s easy to dismiss it, but to those who have experienced an NDE, or any type of "vision”, it’s quite another story. I think there’s no way to claim right now that mind is brain and case-closed. There are simply too many loose ends.

All the physical evidence does indicate the activity of the brain does produce the effects we call the mind. If damage to certain areas produces certain types of loss in the abilities of the mind the conclusion is obvious. That doctors have been able to map all of these areas and can make predictions(as they can) of the mental effects of damage in certain areas then their theories of the physical origin of the mind is supported by the facts. Sure we have a lot to learn about the details, but the general understanding has been established. We are now at the level of mapping individual thoughts, using those thoughts to manipulate aircraft systems and cursors by simply thinking about it. Recently a man who lost both arms has been manipulating an artificial arm using nothing but the thoughts in his head! These are real measurable aspects of the mind which operate physical machinery. These measurable effects remove mind from the mystical and plant it firmly in the physical aspects of the brain. In the sciences this is as good a level of evidence as you can get, direct observation and accurate measurement. The future will only improve our detailed knowledge, the breakthrough has already occured in these last few years.

Grumpy

 

[Chalnoth]

Hi Grummpy,
This isn’t a “scientific” response, nor do I intend it to be. When the brain is damaged, function can be lost, and it seems a logical conclusion to say brain = mind, although no hard evidence exists to back that up, since the “mind” cannot be identified, but we do have our logical conclusions. Much work has been done to locate the “consciousness center” in the brain, but without success. Anyway, if you accept mind = brain, how do you explain so-called psychic-phenomena, such as near death experiences? The only response I have seen is to discredit people (call them crazy) who claim to experience it, or claim that it is some type of dying brain activity, hence the light and tunnel, and just forget about those who had hellish NDE’s, or those that can describe events that took place after their "death". Now, to someone who has never experienced any of this first hand, it’s easy to dismiss it, but to those who have experienced an NDE, or any type of "vision”, it’s quite another story. I think there’s no way to claim right now that mind is brain and case-closed. There are simply too many loose ends.

Many people are extremely adept at making up false memories, and will even believe in them strongly afterwards:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

Put simply, you cannot trust peoples' memories, even your own. The only thing you can trust absolutely is empirical data. And all empirical data relating to psychic phenomena to date has turned up no result. Thus there is ample evidence that psychic phenomena do not exist.

 

[TricksterWolf]

My, my folks, I leave for 24 hours and have to read 4 pages to keep up!!!

Tricksterwolf



I disagree, we know what conciousness is, where it resides, the type of damage the mind receives if the brain is damaged in certain areas, we can measure the brain activity associated with certain thoughts, we can tell if conciousness is missing by the lack of activity in the brain(even if the body is still living(Terri Schivo)), there are many things we can say about the mind that show it to exist in the activities of the brain. We need very much more capable equipment before we can "read" minds directly, but in principle it is doable.

Bottom line is that all the functions of the mind are directly attributable to the physical activities of the brain. As pieces of the brain are damaged or removed(due to accident or disease) those parts of the mind specifically associated with those pieces disappear. Mind is not a seperate entity, it is a physical property of the brain.

As to the concept of a soul, no physical evidence of it's existence has been found.

Grumpy

I remain unconvinced. I have a strong background in neuroscience research, and there's very little that is concretely known about what is called phenomenal consciousness by philosophers. And none of it is purely empirical, because our understanding of the phenomenon relies entirely on subjective reports. You can say "we know what consciousness is" by applying terminology to an unknown situation, but you're surely speaking from an essentialistic paradigm; slapping a label on a concept doesn't mean you know any more about it than you did in the first place. The "experience" of consciousness can't be directly examined in an empirical way. Attempting to place this prematurely in the realm of science is an unscientific proposition. Science brings us very useful knowledge, but it isn't everything. Some events and experiences are by definition unscientific.

I agree that there is an absence of information on the soul. Absence of information isn't proof of absence, however. A lack of empirical proof may be a reason for you not to believe in the soul (and quite a valid one), but it isn't a valid criticism against people who do believe in one. All one has to do is weigh the experience of their own consciousness to make that determination, and I can understand why belief in a soul exists. The experience of consciousness is amazingly convincing.

If a woman ran down the street, kissed you, then ran away, and nobody else saw it, would you believe that it happened? Or would you dismiss and forget it because nobody else saw it, so it must have been your imagination? This is a personal choice. It's not scientifically unsound to believe in things that exist beyond the reaches of empirical examination.

Trickster

 

[TricksterWolf]

Put simply, you cannot trust peoples' memories, even your own. The only thing you can trust absolutely is empirical data. And all empirical data relating to psychic phenomena to date has turned up no result. Thus there is ample evidence that psychic phenomena do not exist.

But we trust our memories constantly. Day-to-day living would be impossible if we didn't rely on our memories.

Things like "proof" of psychic phenomena aren't wrong because they involve memory--it's because they attempt to conclude something scientific using non-systematic methods of observation. Observations can be flawed, and consistently so. But there is a use to different methods of "coming to know". Science is one method, useful in developing systems that allow for prediction and control of the natural world. Other methods have other valuable uses.

Trickster

 

[Oncedeceived]

I asked some questions on posts 108-110 that I would really like to have responses to. Thanks

 

[Tomk80]

Chimpanzees have been observed standing on a box to reach fruit and when the box is removed and a paper is introduced the Chimp tries to use the paper to stand on to get the fruit.

Chimpanzees also have been given food by humans and the chimps then understand that the human will have food. When the researchers wore blindfolds or buckets on their heads and held fruit the animals were very puzzled when they didn't get the same response from the researchers. They didn't understand that the researchers had to see them to respond.

Although this is nothing conclusive it does show the limitations of these intelligent creatures to understand and use abstract thought.

But it also shows that they have some of the basic concepts of it. If we look at humans, not everyone has the same ability to use abstract thought. Mathematicians are very good at it, but some people can't grasp mathematics at all. They are still capable of abstract thought, only their ability in it is less.

Cats often attack their own mirror image, they think it is another cat. Chimps and dolphins recognize it is their own image reflected. They have a higher sense of 'self' as cats have, which is already (as far as I can see) an abstraction. Your chimp example shows the same. The chimp already has a certain level of abstraction, where the chimp equates objects, groups them (standon thing to reach banana), instead of looking at each object as a new thing. Sure, the level of abstraction is less than in humans, I cannot agree more. But it is also higher than it is in cats, chickens or insects.

You seem to see abstract thought as black and white. You either have it, or you don't. I would propose that there is a continuum here.

What is the most "human thing"? What makes us human and what makes us worth more than other animals in our own eyes. Are we not intelligent to understand that our survival depends on theirs? Would it not be more in line with animal instinct to use our own intellect for our survival by the same theory that assumes that we have learned to be moral by alturistic mechanisms. It seems to me that since we are at the top of the food chain and do understand the implication that we are dependent on lower life forms to survive that we would place as high a value on animals and other creatures as we do on ourselves.

When you look at all animals, humans included, you see that the more something looks like you, the more value you place on it. People fall in love with people that look a bit like them, that's why you so often feel that a couple fits so nicely together. When choosing a pet like a dog or a cat, people also prefer to choose an animal in which they recognize part of themselves. This is not something done consciously. When we think about it, we know that we depend on other animals for survival. Trouble is, we don't think as often as we like to pretend.

 

[Tomk80]

I'd like to ask those who disagree with the CWV (Christian worldveiw) that a soul exists if they feel that there was ever a time that they did not feel they were themselves? Has anyone ever felt that the person they were as a child is not the same person that exists today?

Nope. What do you think that shows?

 

[Tomk80]

Oh, sorry. So you feel that it is not a purely philosophical question. Do you feel that there is a distinction between your "self" and someone else's self?

I know this was directed at Chalnoth, but for myself. Yes, I do feel there is a distinction between my 'self' and someone elses 'self'.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Has anyone brought up Searle's "Chinese Room Paradox" yet?

Spooky stuff!

I know this was directed at Chalnoth, but for myself. Yes, I do feel there is a distinction between my 'self' and someone elses 'self'.

Basic version is that you don't actually have a sense of self... you just think that you do. Its a very complete illusion, but an illusion nonetheless

 

[shernren]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

If this philosophical topic had been first broached in the East, the first philosopher to come up with it would have called it the English room paradox; and it would be far more apt, as I think English is far less logical than Chinese.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Dont know that it really matters what its CALLED, it is to date, the best explanation I have seen that goes any way towards explaining, in basic terms, how intellect might not be an actual awareness of "self", even though it apears to be

 

[Tomk80]

Dont know that it really matters what its CALLED, it is to date, the best explanation I have seen that goes any way towards explaining, in basic terms, how intellect might not be an actual awareness of "self", even though it apears to be

But as such, I don't think it is actually that convincing. I think the description given by Searle in this page are too restrictive to actually accurately answer give an answer to this question.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

But as such, I don't think it is actually that convincing. I think the description given by Searle in this page are too restrictive to actually accurately answer give an answer to this question.

Only because you think of men in a tiny little box getting tired, and have a pre-conceived notion that you are self aware.

I find Searle's suggestion compelling, to say the least.

See also Alastair Reynolds'discussion on Turing Compliance... he suggests that a sufficiently advanced system can pass the Turing test (indeed, modern computer programs are close) without being self aware, in line with the Chinese room thought experiment... its just a matter of having a big enough catalogu of "if/then" instructions

Remember, when Turing came up with his ideas, a KILObyte seemed like a big memory... so modern multi gig zip drives full of if/thens are much easier to grasp, rather than Turing's idea of the self conscious machinery needed to respond to any stimulus

 

[c'mon sense]

Hi Grummpy,
Much work has been done to locate the “consciousness center” in the brain, but without success.

The brain is a network of electrically interacting cells. As such, no "center" will ever be found. What is the "center" of a swarm of ocean fish? Which one fish is the coordinator of all others? None. And yet they move in a coordinate manner with mathematical precision, while each does his own thing. The shape and behaviour of the swarm is an emergent property of the behaviour of the individual fish. The total is more than the sum of the parts.

Take computers for example. Many claim that the soul is to the body what software is to a computer. But in actual fact, a software is still nothing more than a coded extension of the electrical circuitry of the computer. There is an electric circuit, however complex, that reproduces Windows.

I think there’s no way to claim right now that mind is brain and case-closed. There are simply too many loose ends.

Indeed, brain=/=mind. But in the hierarchy of nature, the brain is the necessary part for a mind to emerge. And once it has, brain and mind are locked in a feed-back loop. (no brain=no mind) Although, at larger scales, networks exhibit an intelligence of their own: the global economy is such an example, or the Earth ecosystem.

 

[JGL53]

The brain is a network of electrically interacting cells. As such, no "center" will ever be found. What is the "center" of a swarm of ocean fish? Which one fish is the coordinator of all others? None. And yet they move in a coordinate manner with mathematical precision, while each does his own thing. The shape and behaviour of the swarm is an emergent property of the behaviour of the individual fish. The total is more than the sum of the parts...

I think this concept is one many people just tend to overlook or fail to intellectually appreciate, as they tend to focus on the impressiveness of so-called "spotlight" conscious awareness, overlooking how much of our "minds" are of the unconscious or subconscious type.

And, of course, the totality of our "minds" constantly changes, as nothing stands perfectly still in all of reality - though certain patterns change at different rates and some give the appearance of solidity and "sameness" over time, in the short run. E.g., no one can step into the same river or stream because both the person and the stream are different from moment to moment.

... in the hierarchy of nature, the brain is the necessary part for a mind to emerge. And once it has, brain and mind are locked in a feed-back loop. (no brain=no mind)...

Here's where Occam's Razor comes into play. No one to date (to my knowledge) has shown in a publically sharable way an example of a, so to speak, "free-floating" mind sans a brain. I.e., one can have a brain without a mind, but where is mind to be had without a brain?

So, when we detect "mind" it is always in a brain. Lacking any other evidence, or a less complicated but sufficient theory, then we can only conclude that mind emerges from brain - that is their obvious relationship - that, and the feedback entailed so that they both, in effect, evolve together.

The only other theory I have heard of is the television transmission analogy - that "mind" or "spirit" or "soul" or "life force" comes from some other mysterious diminsion and that the brain "merely"serves as the transmission point into our mundane or physical reality - that, and the brain serves as a "housing" for the immaterial "substance".

No real explanation is ever given for how this works, exactly, it's just believed as truth because it is flattering, and thus became a part of early pre-scientific human culture, and is now passed on generation to generation, in apparently all societies, inculcated in humans (children) at that formative stage wherein naivete allows nearly any idea, no matter how out of bounds with observed reality, to be so inculcated.

One would need to explain why "spirit' would prefer the brain to be the point of transmission or housing, rather than the foot or the liver, or any other body part. Until then, Occam's Razor cuts this notion out - for the thinking person.