| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Cognitive Science Forum » .Re: Mind/brain interface
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| pavan03 |
 Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 12:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.can>
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.meta
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: The Mind/Brain Interface
Quote: On 22 Oct 2003 13:11:40 -0700, pavan03 wrote:
...snip...
You can't simply have a
device that generates happiness, unless there's something that
experiences said happiness.
....snip....
Here's you're error in a nutshell. Using your logic, there couldn't be any
rain with there being a device that generates rain. There is no such device.
That is, there is nothing up there floating around in the sky that from time
to time produces rain.
I fail to see how this follows one bit. When it comes to conscious
experience, regardless of what I can doubt, I can't doubt my own
feelings. That is there is something that **definitely** feels happy
or feels sad. And as I sit here typing, there is definitely something
that **wants** to type. That thing is what I seek to identify. Yes, it
does exist, you know that (in fact, the thing in that body that
"knows"--where knowledge is stored is also what we're trying to
identify).
No, there is nothing floating in the sky producing rain, other than
clouds.
Quote:
You're led astray by our language, which requires a subject noun or pronoun
for a complete sentence. When we say "It rains," there is in fact no "it"
that's raining, there's just raining. There is no reason to assume that there
is a "device that generates happiness," since "happiness" is a mode of
functioning, a way that the brain (+ body, BTW) operates. Change some aspect
Ah, thank you for the clarification of the view. This is even more
absurd. Again, take that analogy of a bunch of parts functioning, like
say an engine. Your proposition that the "happiness" is the way the
brain operates is as bizarre to me as saying "well, see these parts
that comprise the engine? The way they function, that's awareness.
See, when the car is functioning properly, if a pedestrian were to
cross the street, the engine knows that and stops. On the other hand,
if I rip out this piece of the engine, well, then the engine doesn't
do anything, there's no longer any awareness, is there?"
Okay, bizarre analogy. It's a bit sketchy. But in any case, I'm
sure you understand the logical absurdity in saying the engine has
something to do with knowing/feeling/wanting as opposed to the person
driving the car. SAME THING!!
You're looking at these molecules, you're seeing them undergo changes
and you have this idea in your head that the way those molecules
function --that's awareness/happiness/etc.!! What possible basis is
there for that?
Quote: of that operation, for example change brain chemistry, break some neural
connections, deprive the brain of oxygen, and the "happiness" stops. We can
Well, okay, let me explain this from another perspective. *I* feel
happy. The thing that feels happy, namely me, I cease to be there when
my body is deprived of oxygen. Why? My body cannot function without
adequate oxygen--as soon as that happens, the soul gets pulled, a body
without a soul=dead. I have a definiton of life--do you?
Quote: also control happiness by means of stimuli of all kinds - by showing
pictures, tell a story, play music, etc. IOW, "happiness" is a behaviour.
Yes, happiness is a behavior. Do you understand the concept that
changes in one place can cause feelings in a completely different
place? Like if someone were to take something that belongs to
you--and then damage it, that would cause a feeling of anger in you
right? Even though what was affected was something *completely*
different from you--a change to that would cause an experience in you,
because that article belongs to you. It's attachment that causes
feelings-because we are attached (this is MY body) to our bodies,
something that affects that results in me experiencing something.
Also, a soul cannot directly interact with the world, it needs a
medium, a body, and that's what our bodies serve to do.
Quote:
The self-report "I am happy" is a part of that behaviour. To deduce from the
"I" in that sentence that there is "something that experiences happiness" is
a big logical jump, and one that must be justified. (Dennett IMO does a
decent job, but I'm not convinced.) To assume further that this "device" is
So you've never felt happy? I mean if you say you've never felt happy,
I can't really try and prove to you that there is something that
experiences happiness.
I think what needs to be justified, from YOUR perspective is why such
a state of the brain needs to be interpreted as happiness, and
furthermore WHAT is interpreting that state of the brain as happiness.
Quote: something apart from the brain is an even bigger jump. You don't justify it.
Why on earth does it have to be a part of the brain? Because the brain
controls the PHYSICAL functioning of the body? I'm not convinced. Try
to do a better job.
Again, the brain is just a bunch of molecules--it's the food I've
eaten. If the food I eat doesn't have such properties, there's no
reason to think the brain would.
I don't really need to prove the existence of a soul--it's
something everyone knows as a fact--you can doubt the existence of
anything you like, but you can't doubt your own existence--I'm calling
that thing that doubts, that knows, that is aware of right & wrong
(how on earth could a brain interact with right & wrong?!), what
you're referring to as "I", that's a soul.
Okay, let me ask you a question--why should it be a part of the
brain, what's wrong with the concept that there is a soul apart from
the brain--I now not only have a definition of life, but also an
explanation for personal identity, a distinction between sentient
substances and insentient substances.
Quote: You just assume it to be true. IMO you still haven't understood what I mean
by "begging the question." So let me explain: To "beg the question" is to
Let me explain why it is not begging the question
1)You exist. That is there is something that knows, that feels, etc.
If one argues that such a "thing" does not exist, but rather these are
just states of the brain, then the obvious question is why should
states of the brain be interpreted as feelings etc. I would never go
up to the state of a battery in a flashlight and say that it is a
feeling, why should the state of the brain be interpreted as a
feeling? That is true that the brain controls the PHYSICAL functioning
of the body--that is, muscles that move when I feel happy are
controlled by the brain, but why must we assume that the configuration
of the brain actually is "happiness"?
2)After you're pretty sure of your own existence, the question is,
what are you composed of? You're not composed of matter because
(notice how you have not responded to this) ANY part of this body, any
physical part, including that brain, and all its cells does not
persist throughout life, which means the brain cannot store knowledge.
On the other hand whatever my body is composed of then remains in that
corpse.
3)Thus I am something non-material. This thing that is aware of the
world around it (Me, I am aware of what happens around me, even if you
were to present some argument that tries to disprove the existence of
such a thing, I need to evaluate that argument, there's something that
**wants** to **know** whether that argument is valid, neither of which
are properties found in among physical things) is quite clearly not
made of matter. Matter can form bonds with other matter, what it
cannot do is be aware of right & wrong, for example, or produce
knowledge of right & wrong. I'd be pleasantly surprised if you can
interpret a brain state as "knowing that stealing is wrong" or even
the question of the brain storing information is begging an
answer--how could it possibly, or why should a brain store "how to
solve a quadratic equation"--have fun with that!!
Quote: assume a proposition you wish to prove, and then use that proposition in the
argument designed to prove its truth. That's a fallacy, and a serious one. In
your case, you can't simply assume that consciousness exists apart from the
brain, and then use that assumption to prove that the brain's function can't
Okay, consciousness does exist apart from the brain. Any biology text
can show that. Brain cells get replaced. The thing that was aware of
my childhood, THEN, still remains now (when I remember something, that
must mean that whatever experienced at that time must be the same
thing that experiences now--like I might recall oh yeah, **I** went to
school).
I'm not trying to prove the brain's function can't be equivalent to
consciousness---you need to prove that it is!! Again, this is an
assumption quite prevalent among anyone who doesn't believe in a soul,
they try to associate consciousness with the brain.
Quote: possibly be equivalent to consciousness. You can't use a belief to prove that
belief to be true. (Well, actually you can do what you want, but you can't
expect me to accept a fallacious argument.)
The assumption that consciousness is something apart from the brain is useful
only if it leads to testable conclusions. It doesn't. You keep going round in
logical circles. OTOH, the assumption that consciousness is a brain function
is testable. For example, if it were not a brain function, we could not
change the brain's function in such a way that consciousness disappears. But
we can change the brain's function in that way. Etc.
Okay, look at that model. There's a soul. There's a body.
Consciousness is not a function of the brain, rather it is a
substance. The body and soul are codependent. The presence of a soul
makes the body function. The body functions so long as there is a
soul in it. If the body were to be damaged to such an extent (say my
brain is completely destroyed), then the soul would then be
removed--see, there is no longer any consciousness. You're explaining
it from your own perspective, but you're not looking at any other
perspective.
In this dualist perspective, the consciousness is a substance, not
a function of the brain. Yet still, when the brain gets damaged (it
becomes utterly useless--why would I still exist if this brain were to
be damaged?), then from an outside observer, that consciousness
"disappears".
Quote:
Of course, they may be something "apart from the brain," but unfortunately
there is no way to test that claim. If you want to believe in a "soul" that
Actually, you know for a fact there's something apart from the brain.
That body you're in, that's alive currently correct? If there's no
soul--if you do not exist, then it will be dead, it won't function
it'll just sit there like a corpse. You could even go and cause the
brain in a corpse to be in certain states, but without you--without a
soul, the states that your brain are in won't matter to you at all.
Quote: exists apart from the body, that's OK with me; I don't want argue religion. I
don't believe there is such a soul. Insofar as I have religious beliefs, I'm
Okay, when people say this, what they're telling me is they have NO
concept of a soul. First of all--let's analyze this statement:
"I don't believe there is such a soul"
The thing that believes (fine, you're going to say that believing in a
soul is a state of the brain a pattern of molecules or an electrical
pattern--as absurd as that might sound), is what's being called a
soul.
Do I "believe" in a soul? No...the thing that's believing, that's a
soul. I'm pretty sure you believe in your own existence correct?!!
This is why people shouldn't say they "have" a soul. I can only
"have" something if it is distinct from me. I have this computer--this
is MY computer. I have a body--this is MY body. Again it's distinct
from me as pointed out earlier.
Quote: impressed that St Paul doesn't talk about the survival of the soul, but of
the resurrection of the body - IOW, St Paul appears to have believed that the
Resurrection is quite absurd. How does a body that is burnt to ash
resurrect?
The survival of the soul is quite straightforward--Can I burn
consciousness? Can I cut consciousness? How can a non-physical thing
be destroyed by any physical means? If it can't, it's automatically
eternal. If consciousness is just a state of the brain, then why
can't we just go around looking at different configurations of
molecules and say "This is consciousness"? If consciousness is a
physical thing, well then we should be able to perceive it. If it's
not a physical thing, it can't be produced by the brain.
Quote: body is of the essence of being human. Without it, "I" don't exist. I'm not
Yes, what's human is the "body". Because I associate myself with it, I
can say that *I* am human. As an example, let's say someone were to
grab my shirt, technically what they're grabbing is that bunch of
cotton, not me, nonetheless I might exclaim "hey, let go of ME".
Often we tend to view things external to us as "me". We associate
ourselves with things we control, things I view as mine.
As far as "without it, "I" don't exist"--there's quite a simple way
to disprove that--your body doesn't persist throughout your life. The
body you're in now is not the body you were in as a child, though you
are still there--see, so all the cells comprising your body can die,
while you still exist. And you have it backwards, without you, that
body doesn't function. Why would my body continue to talk if I'm not
there? It's a **medium** between me and the world, distinct from me,
but controlled by me (as well as the brain).
Quote: sure how far to follow Paul, but I certainly follow him that far.
HTH
--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Wolf Kirchmeir |
| Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2003 1:26 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 23 Oct 2003 11:47:48 -0700, pavan03 wrote:
Quote: Ah, thank you for the clarification of the view. This is even more
absurd. Again, take that analogy of a bunch of parts functioning, like
say an engine. Your proposition that the "happiness" is the way the
brain operates is as bizarre to me as saying "well, see these parts
that comprise the engine? The way they function, that's awareness.
See, when the car is functioning properly, if a pedestrian were to
cross the street, the engine knows that and stops. On the other hand,
if I rip out this piece of the engine, well, then the engine doesn't
do anything, there's no longer any awareness, is there?"
Okay, bizarre analogy.
Bizarre only in that you seem unwilling to follow your own logic to its
conclusion. Suppose the car has sensors that react to the presence of a
pedestrian, and a guidance system that will cause the car to slow down and if
necessary stop. It would be quite reasonable to say the car was aware of the
pedestrian in that case. And if it failed to respond as expected, we would
look for faults or damage in it, and try to repair it, just as we look for
faults or damage in a human that seems to be unaware in some way, and try to
repair them.
Humans are of course harder to repair than cars, even aware cars, but then
humans are much more complex systems that can fail in many more ways.
--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stéphane Coël |
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"pavan03" <Monsieur_Lynx@brown.edu> a écrit dans le message de news:
68f44414.0310231047.6eac0393@posting.google.com...
Quote: ----- Original Message -----
From: "Wolf Kirchmeir" <wwolfkir@sympatico.can
Newsgroups: sci.cognitive,sci.philosophy.meta
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: The Mind/Brain Interface
3)Thus I am something non-material. This thing that is aware of the
Quote: world around it (Me, I am aware of what happens around me, even if you
were to present some argument that tries to disprove the existence of
such a thing, I need to evaluate that argument, there's something that
**wants** to **know** whether that argument is valid, neither of which
are properties found in among physical things) is quite clearly not
made of matter.
Animals are aware of what happens around them.
Do animals have a soul?
--
Stéphane Coël |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 7:52 pm
|
|