Latest lecture Gemma brought an interesting article to our attention, that deals with our present theme. I'll present you two quotes from the article, that I found most telling.
Quote 1: "Modern neuroscience does not include any kind of mind-body dualism. It's not compatible with being a serious neuroscientist nowadays. I'm not a philosopher, but one succinct statement I like is saying, 'The mind is what the brain does.'
The sum of the bio-computational functions of the brain makes up 'the mind,'" said study senior author Nico Dosenbach, a neurology professor at Washington University School of Medicine. -End Quote-
This is an interesting remark in relation to the Mind-Body Identity theory. In what sense is talking about the brain the same as/ identical with talking about the mind and what all happens in our mind?
Quote 2: "Actually, the purpose of the brain is highly debated," Evan Gordon ,Washington University, said. "Some neuroscientists think of the brain as an organ intended primarily to perceive and interpret the world around us.
Others think of it as an organ designed to produce the best 'outputs' - usually a physical action - to optimize survivability and evolutionary fitness for any given situation." -End Quote-
Did you ever ask yourself: what is the purpose of my brain? Nevertheless when you ask the question, I would say that both answers apply and the article inspired my to write a letter to one of the scientists, Evan Gordon, mentioned in the article.
This is my letter: The reason I contact you is because I want to present you some ideas about the mind-body relation, that came to my mind during the discussion in class.
The main issue in the debate is of course the existence of dualism. I guess that is sufficiently refuted, but in philosophical circles they are still debating on qualia and the special status of subjective statements, etc. However, let me give you an other explanation of the mind - body problem.
The main problem is the ontological status of mental states. The statement, that the mind is what the brain does, comes close to what I discussed with the students.
Materialism changed its name into physicalism because we now know that there is more in the world than just the little particles Democritus had in mind.
Take for instance "velocity". What is the ontological status of velocity? When we say that it exists, what do we mean by existence?
There is not such a thing as velocity as an independent property and material objects (dualism).
Velocity exists as a relation between stationary object X and moving object Y. Scientifically you can do all kinds of things with it. You can measure it, influence it, change it, stop it and so on.
Does the mind exist? Yes, like you can not deny velocity as being real. But the mind is not a thing. The mind is the relation between the neurons and the energy that drives the communication between the neurons.
In other words, the mind is as real as velocity. You can't have velocity without at least two objects in relation to each other. You can't have a mind without at least two neurons in relation to each other.
So, I came to the conclusion that the mind-body problem in philosophy is actually an outdated and obsolete problem from now on and this approach may be a simple explanation between what we call the brain and the mind. -END OF LETTER-
I sent this e-mail April 21 and I assume that this radiology professor is too busy to answer, but who knows -give him some time-, maybe we'll get a reaction.
The point is, when you study all these philosophers discussing the mind - body issue in relation to materialism, they really can become so complex in their reasoning, that you wonder, does this really make sense?
Just assume that the mind IS what the brain does, then the real problem is our language. How the neuroscientist describes what he observes in the brain is a clear language where the words have clear denotations.
But then we have the philosophers. They talk about sensations, emotions, introspection, consciousness, recollection. Are they talking about the same things as neuroscientists are?
We have to figure this out: those languages we use to describe our reality and the phenomenon that words can differ, but yet refer to the same material reality, like "the Morning star" and "the Evening star" refer to the same planet: Venus.
Thank you for your attention.....
Main Sources:
MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition
TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------
1 - 100 Philosophers 9 May 2009 Start of
2 - 25+ Women Philosophers 10 May 2009 this blog
3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking 10 May 2009
4 - Modern Theories of Ethics 29 Oct 2009
5 - The Ideal State 24 Febr 2010 / 234
6 - The Mystery of the Brain 3 Sept 2010 / 266
7 - The Utopia of the Free Market 16 Febr 2012 / 383
8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism 5 Sept 2012 / 413
9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist 6 Nov 2012 / 426
10 - Non-Western Philosophy 29 May 2013 / 477
11 - Why Science is Right 2 Sept 2014 / 534
12 - A Philosopher looks at Atheism 1 Jan 2015 / 557
13 - EVIL, a philosophical investigation 17 Apr 2015 / 580
14 - Existentialism and Free Will 2 Sept 2015 / 586
15 - Spinoza 2 Sept 2016 / 615
16 - The Meaning of Life 13 Febr 2017 / 637
17 - In Search of my Self 6 Sept 2017 / 670
18 - The 20th Century Revisited 3 Apr 2018 / 706
19 - The Pessimist 11 Jan 2020 / 819
20 - The Optimist 9 Febr 2020 / 824
21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream 8 Oct 2020 / 872
22 - A World Full of Patterns 1 Apr 2021 / 912
23 - The Concept of Freedom 8 Jan 2022 / 965
24 - Materialism 7 Sept 2022 / 1011
[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman
[13:20] herman Bergson: I wonder if I ever get a reaction on my letter :-)
[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): maybe they get confused about your therory
[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): theory
[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): they have to think about it
[13:21] herman Bergson: You think so, Beertje?
[13:21] Windows Bhalti: I believe that sensations, emotions, introspection, consciousness, recollection are produced similarly to language in that the neurons elicit them.
[13:21] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): yes of course
[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah
[13:22] herman Bergson: What does that mean Windows?
[13:23] herman Bergson: The brain generates languages, yes
[13:24] Windows Bhalti: By the same token, the brain generates sensations, emotions, introspection, consciousness, recollection
[13:24] herman Bergson: The question is the ontological status of these concepts....
[13:25] herman Bergson: Can we assume that they refer to the same thing as neuron A fired to neuron B?
[13:26] Windows Bhalti: Various areas of the brain light up when stimulated ...perhaps ontology might be considered voodoo?
[13:27] herman Bergson: That is new to me :-)
[13:27] Windows Bhalti: Me, too ...I'm winging it :))
[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well the closest analogy i have to the mind is like the operating system of a computer and how it stores and retrieves data and then u have sensors and stuff hooked up to it retrieving input from the outside world
[13:29] herman Bergson: Anyway...the basic idea is that psychological statements refer to the same as neuroscientific statements
[13:29] Windows Bhalti nods
[13:29] herman Bergson: That is what is known as the Identity Theory
[13:30] herman Bergson: First appeared in the 50s
[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and the neurons a bit like the transistors of the CPU and bits in a hard drive flash drive. difference is computers are digital and cant actually feel anything. so indeed what makes us concious. Well we are not machines but living beings but here is where that alanogy fall apart, but its the closest i can get
[13:31] herman Bergson: But I have a feeling I interpreted the existence of the mind in another way
[13:31] Windows Bhalti: As an aside, I'm reading a book right now called "On The Neurobiology of Sin" by Lazar Puhalo
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess there is still more to the mind though
[13:31] herman Bergson: I related it to the ontological status of velocity
[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ok
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): your description was also correct
[13:32] herman Bergson: Interesting title....
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): aa yes
[13:32] herman Bergson: but the term "Sin" only exists within a religious context
[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true
[13:32] Windows Bhalti: Yes, ...the man is an Orthodox Catholic
[13:32] herman Bergson: So, what is the book about Windows?
[13:33] herman Bergson: I see, that explains the title
[13:33] Windows Bhalti: Basically what the title suggests and mostly about how to reconcile medicine and religion.
[13:34] herman Bergson: There is the problem.....
[13:34] Windows Bhalti nods
[13:35] herman Bergson: religion is just a cultural thing, while medicine is a material physiological matter unrelated to religious believes
[13:35] Windows Bhalti: yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: So, the books discussing a peculiar combination of fields, which are scientifically unrelated
[13:36] Windows Bhalti: yes but could possibly be so ...potentially
[13:37] herman Bergson: They both fields are related for people that hold catholic beliefs, I guess
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): Sin to me would be bad things, analogous to evil but in religion Sin sadly also refer to any kind of pleasure like Sex, partying or being happy in general. Everyone should do nothing more then praying to god and conclude that they are miserable and worthless in comparison to god.
[13:37] herman Bergson: But for the rest of the world it is a somewhat useless discourse
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): otherwise they are regarded as sinners
[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): at least in the more extreme cases
[13:38] herman Bergson: noo no Bejiita.....
[13:38] herman Bergson: Sin is a creation of christian belief
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): exactly
[13:38] herman Bergson: it has no reality
[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): to control people
[13:38] herman Bergson: Morality, our understanding of good and evil has reality
[13:39] herman Bergson: also a cultural matter, but the discourse about on what you base morality is quite different then
[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as i say my analogue to the term Sin would be analogous to doing evil things, like what Putin is doing at the moment committing genocide on Ukrainians. The term sin however is created by religion
[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but if i would define that word id say that what sin is. Do harm to others
[13:42] herman Bergson: Well...we're a bit of topic now, so let's wait for a response to my letter. Maybe there will be one :-)
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:43] herman Bergson: Unless you still have a final question or remark.......
[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): having sex for me is not evil (unless u are raping someone, Thats pure evil, cause then ur harming another person = sin)
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): so do no harm to others and be happy i just say
[13:44] herman Bergson: Thank you alll again for your participation again....^_^
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well lets get happy with some fun game shall we
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡
[13:44] herman Bergson: And be happy :-))
[13:44] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ツ
[13:44] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): YAY! (yay!)
Dualism is most certainly not refuted. On the contrary, if we subscribe to the existence of a material world, and we define this material world as being wholly quantitative, then consciousness is not part of that material reality since consciousness is at least comprised, in part, by qualia. In other words, consciousness is not compatible with materialism.
ReplyDeleteSaying as the first quote does that “The mind is what the brain does” is simply flat out false, since brain processes are just that, namely brain processes. Processes merely refer to change in the world (like velocity) rather than anything substantive (like the mind or/and its conscious states).