Posted on 11/11/2004 3:44:08 AM PST by Lindykim
Yeah, I can remember a few bars: Swaaaa-mee, how I love ya, how I love ya, my dear old Swami ...
Dear marron, do you mean to suggest that the brain is here making a false report about the factual state of the system it governs? I.e., that the brain registers the severed limb as still attached, based on neuronal inputs? If this is the case, and mind or consciousness is merely the epiphenomenon of the brain, would mind be able to do anything other than confirm the brain’s false report?
If that is the case, then how can we – that is, you and I and all the other “epiphenomena” out there – form any kind of accurate picture of reality? How could science itself be possible under such conditions?
Thus we are merrily led into such conundrums to the extent we are persuaded by the materialist/mechanistic understanding of nature promulgated by the Cartesian/Newtonian worldview. It has become increasingly fashionable to regard the universe as having the nature of a clockwork: Once built, deterministic physical laws kick in and so the clock just keeps running along forever after without any further intervention needed. Somehow -- I can’t imagine why -- folks of materialist persuasion/imagination are content with this formulation of the ultimate questions.
The most salient thing the materialist seems to overlook in order to guarantee his contentment is one simple fact: Every single machine in the universe that we know about, or possibly could know about, is an artifact. Having said that, the other thing we know is that every artifact necessarily presumes an artificer — a creator, an artist, an architect, a poet, a scientist, et al.
But the question of “artificer” is the very thing that materialists want to leave out of the picture, the reason why they insist the brain, and not the mind, is “sovereign” when it comes to living beings. Thus the materialist position appears inherently self-contradictory. They want the artifact, but not the artificer by which the artifact is made possible in the first place.
The other really interesting thing that machines of all descriptions have in common is that they are really good at following the physical laws. But the reason they are able to do this presumably is because they have been designed, engineered, and tooled to achieve that outcome from “outside” themselves. Similarly, the very functions they are to execute are specified and supplied by an extra-systemic source; i.e., by their programmers.
Yet logically it appears that, when it comes to mechanistic systems, according to the “sovereign” brain/epiphenomenal mind model of metaphysical naturalism, it appears that it’s actually the epiphenomena – i.e., the “programmers” – that implicitly have been hoisted into first place regarding the actual design and function of the machine (whether the fact is explicitly recognized or not); and moreover probably, similarly (by analogical extension) the design and function of natural systems. Arguably, under such conditions, it would be the brain (and matter itself) that is the “epiphenomenon” of a greater principle of Nature.
In conclusion, we may define a material system as one that follows the laws of physics, whose behavior fits to the pathway computable from the physical laws on the basis of its initial and boundary conditions.
Please forgive me for suspecting that there is a heck of a whole lot more going on in LIFE than this definition recognizes or can explain.
Well thank you so much, dear marron, for your provocative suggestion, offered (I feel pretty sure) in the spirit of pure, unrestrained, vital merriment! :^) It is always a joy to chat with you.
Whoever said life had been explained? Perhaps there are som injudicious writings by individual scients, and a lot of lousy science journalins, but life has not been explained.
I know of no serious neuroscientist who would claim to understand te brain. But we do know some things, and what we do know is fully consistent with the hypothesis that the physical brain is required for consciousness.
Otherwise, why would the size of the brain in various species correspond with inferred intelligence?
Using the radio metaphor, why would it take a larger brain to have a deeper mind? I can hear Beethoven on a five dollar radio. Every note is there.
When you loose a limb you do not lose the knowledge of how that limb was used. If you aquire an artificial limb, you can learn to perform equivalent activities.
But if the brain is damaged, you lose not just an ability, but the knowledge of having had that ability. It is not like an out of tune radio or a cheap speaker. It is like losing both a station and the memory that the station ever existed. It is, in fact, losing a piece of your mind.
You are engaging in circular definitions here.
What property of the spritual allows it to interact with the physical, while simultaneously distinguishing it from being physical?
If one has a vivid enough imagination, anything can seem to make sense.
To paraphrase Alice: "I have often seen a brain without a mind, but I have never seen a mind without a brain." Even Donovan had to keep his brain in a bell jar.
In the missing limb scenario, if the mind is feeling an itch in a toe that is no longer there then the sensation is certainly false. The only physical means I could conjure to attribute such a phenomenon to the nerve endings at the point of the severed limb would be if those nerves (which is to say, all nerves) are holographic in mechanism. And I have never heard such a speculation.
People born without limbs do not seem to have the "missing limb" itch syndrome. (And those born with six fingers find it natural, too.) A simple hypothesis of the missing limb syndrome is just that one remembers the limb was there and what it felt like when the limb itched. It's like a dream in that the brain is activating circuits without necessarily having input.
IMHO, the results would look the same whether one views the mind as an epiphenomenon of the physical brain or whether the physical brain is the mechanism of mind.
Seems to me that your statement requires the physical brain to operate a database in which case all of the data, processes and logic of a man would be downloadable. That is great sci-fi but I am not aware of any such actual progress (or even agreement on the mechanism of storage/retrieval).
I am at post 1, and without reading further, I can predict the direction that this thread will take. The pro-evolution posters will be all over this article like a dog on a bone. The anti-evolution side must do something that I have yet to see them do, and that is to somehow persuade someone with first-hand knowledge such as the author of this article, or a Michael Behe, or someone else of that caliber to participate in the discussion. Although it saddens may to say so, the pro-evolution posters are usually more knowledgeable about arguments to support their position than are those on the anti-evolution side. However, although my technical/scientific knowledge is not in the biologic sciences, I find the ID arguments as put forth by the leading proponents very compelling.
How could this be observed? More importantly, how could this be falsified?
There's a moving account in Sacks' Man who mistook his wife for a hat of a (iirc) stroke victim who became blind and had no memory of what seeing was.
Yes. The brain is receiving a false signal, and its default is to interpret as it always has.
If this is the case, and mind or consciousness is merely the epiphenomenon of the brain, would mind be able to do anything other than confirm the brain’s false report?
Now you are moving into another realm, as I believe you fully realize. I would have to respond in two ways.
We are a physical being, a physical mechanism, with all that this entails. Of course, we are also more than that.
I was just referring to the phenomenon of nervous circuitry delivering a false signal to a particular point on the brain, and the brain receiving that signal, interpreting it in the normal fashion. The mind, having access to more data than just that one point, is able to recognize that this particular signal is false.
In my world, this happens all the time. You have circuits that fail, and either deliver no signal, or deliver a false one. If the programming is clever enough, the machine itself can work around it; if not, you have a human supervising it who should be able to recognize a false signal and either fix it or at least be smart enough to ignore it.
He is smart enough to recognize that the signal is aberrant because he has access to other data, and he has memory to compare it against. He knows what a true signal looks like.
In our case, with experience in our bodies and on this earth we come to recognize when our senses are failing us. At least, some of the time.
Our brain and nervous system are a fascinating piece of machinery, remarkably well programmed as you point out, and it will be a long time before we are able to come close to what it can do. But we will approach its capabilities, having it to use as a model, or example, we will over time reverse engineer it and use many of its lessons in our own creations.
But there is something else to the human machine which can't be accounted for by the machinery itself, and that is will. Machinery I deal with will always have a human operator, ultimately, who uses it for his ends. Our body also has a human operator, who directs it, and that human is somehow separate from his machinery, although he clearly can't live on earth, in this dimension, unless his machinery operates properly. The machinery fails, and he must depart this dimension or die. We cannot separate ourselves from our flesh and remain here, but we are not our flesh. We inhabit it, we direct it, we use it for our ends.
We are the ghost in the machine, made in the image of God. Separate from God, separate from the machine, we can't live on this earth. Separate from God, our lifespan can't exceed the lifespan of the machinery that we inhabit.
I think we are on the same wavelength here. The brain is a remarkable piece of hardware, a remarkable piece of programming. Physical control of the body, memory, reasoning, seem to take place there. These are physical attributes. Will, though, is something else. Will is an attribute of spirit. Will is the operator, the driver, the pilot. Will is you. At death, "will" disengages from the machinery by some means, and at that point your brain and body become cleverly designed meat. You can hook electrodes up to it and get muscle movement, but sovereign will, which is to say "you", has departed.
Perhaps you ought to read on.......you'll find that the pro-evo. posters have walked away fom any discussion concerning their fairytale 'creation story' even though I placed their names in the header.
But then if I had an improbably silly-sounding creation story like that as the foundation of my belief system, I'd also walk away from any discussion.
Great old flick. Speaking on behalf of my own brain, while I'm sometimes out of my mind, I'm never out of my body.
You are asking a question that cannot be answered if you insist on personally experiencing everything you believe to be true.
However, the effects of brain damage are among the most widely studied in the entire field of neuroscience. In addition to the case cited above, there is a famous case of an artist wh lost color vision as a result of an accident. He lost not only his color vision, but also his knowledge and memory of colors.
From the article:
"Re-constructed Memory
Mr I could not remember colour even from memories which he knew he had experienced in colour. This evidence supports Gerald Edelman's contention that memories are're-constructed' each time we remember them and do not exist as separate entities stored in a mythical filing cabinet.
It explains how characteristics of memories are amenable to change through various NLP Change Personal History techniques. The recent publicity of the detrimental implanting of 'false memories' by unskilled therapists highlights the importance of facilitating changes that are 'ecological' for the client. "
But Doc, who or what is the "one" that remembers? The brain? Or its epiphenomenon (i.e., the mind)? If it's the former, then the brain is giving a false report about the current state of the system. If it's the latter, then how does the mind know more than the brain does, since (apparently) you define the mind as epiphenomenal, that is, as a by-product of brain activity?
Also, I think your statement implying that there is no "input" to dream activity may be incorrect. But that depends, I suppose, on whether it is true that the mind or consciousness has independent reality. For if one were to admit that the mind is an existent in its own right, then one could hypothesize that the inputs to the dream state were coming from subconscious levels of the mind.
BTW, nowhere have I suggested that by being an existent in its own right, the mind can get along without a brain. But just because synergistic relation exists, that doesn't necessarily mean the mind is an epiphenomenon of the brain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.