Mind is not reduceable to brain

[seer]

The actual physical relationship is a scientific one, where the only thing known is a causal relationship. The research concerning the brain, and the mind and consciousness has found only a direct relationship based neurological activity of our nervous system, in particular the brain. Progressively the scientific research is showing that it is the only physical relationship. The only philosophical route possible at this point is an 'argument from ignorance.'

But you are a dualist Shuny, as your religion teaches, so there is more to human rationality than the natural. Your faith is very clear about this.

[shunyadragon]

But you are a dualist Shuny, as your religion teaches, so there is more to human rationality than the natural. Your faith is very clear about this.

Judging from your selective history of referring to the Baha'i Faith and selective references of Baha'i writings to justify what you believe, you remain clueless as to what the Baha'i Faith teaches, and not very clear at all.

Again, again, again and again . . . seer, my belief is independent of the scientific explanation of the physical nature of our existence, and independent on other theists trying to prove things based on a selective interpretation of science. the belief in dualism is not dependent on whether the mind and consciousness we perceive represents the soul. I believe the mind and consciousness of the soul reflects our physical brain, mind and consciousness relationship, but is independent of the mind and consciousness of our brain. In essence the existence of our soul is not dependent on our brain..

Theistic apologists trying to reject naturalism, specifically whether methodological naturalism can describe what we perceive as the mind and consciousness related to the brain, is an insistence of a form of materialism to support the belief that our consciousness is the soul. It is not necessary that this is so.

[shunyadragon]

Yes, so Shuny believes that dualism is a fact in spite of their being no "scientific evidence." Therefore all facts are not subject to scientific investigation.

This response is very confusing. Tassman has a pretty good understanding of my position. There is in fact "scientific evidence," for a relationship between the brain and what we perceive as the mind and consciousness. The existence nor nonexistence of the soul is not dependent on whether science can nor cannot explain the relationship between the brain, and what we perceive as the brain and consciousness.

It is well understood by most who post here, that you basically reject science, and only selectively cite science to justify what you believe.

[Jim B.]

So by what reasoning is it asserted that consciousness is not reducible to the brain? If you probe the brain it elicits the conscious experience of past events, so consciousness is not a something/a mind, that exists apart from brain, it is brain activity that is the cause of conscious experience. If not, then what you are suggesting is a mind, a ghost in the machine, and a mind, a thinking thing, a conscious ghost, minus a brain makes no sense. You are substituting the notion of an immaterial brain in the place of a material brain. Why would the problem of consciousness be any different in the former than in the latter?

You seem to assume that there are only two possible positions when it comes to the mind: physicalism and a naive version of Cartesian dualism ( ghost in the machine). Those aren't the only choices.

Even if the brain causes consciousness in some sense, or plays some causal role, that wouldn't mean that the brain IS consciousness. I was caused by my parents but I am not my parents. When I strike a match, the flame is initially caused by the friction, the chemical composition of the match head, etc, and as it continues to burn, the surrounding oxygen is its maintaining cause, but the flame is not identical to these causes.

There are good reasons to think that the brain cannot be the necessary and sufficient cause of consciousness, but I'll leave that for later... Can we agree that cause does not mean identity?

[Jim B.]

The actual physical relationship is a scientific one, where the only thing known is a causal relationship. The research concerning the brain, and the mind and consciousness has found only a direct relationship based neurological activity of our nervous system, in particular the brain. Progressively the scientific research is showing that it is the only physical relationship. The only philosophical route possible at this point is an 'argument from ignorance.'

The only physical relationship possible is a physical relationship. That's question-begging. If physical explanations are the only possible legitimate explanations, then, guess what?, you'll end up with physical explanations. If your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
The problem, obviously, is that physical explanations leave out the essential part of the very thing you're trying to explain! So it cannot be a complete, satisfactory explanation without reducing the topic to the framework that one has already pre-supposed the topic must fit into. So sorry if you don't like it, but your program does smack of scientism.

Scientism is a bogus layman 'negative name calling' concept and meaningless in this discussion. If you want to discuss this aspect of the philosophy of science use meaningful terminology such as philosophical naturalism. I, of course, do not advocate 'philosophical (ontological) naturalism,' because I am a theist.

The term's often used pejoratively but not always. There are scientists and philosophers who proudly own the term. Terms can have meanings irrespective of the motives attributed to those using that term. And philosophical naturalism is probably not all that helpful in this discussion since belief, and lack of belief, in it are each compatible with reductionism and irreductionism about consciousness.

[Truthseeker]

I guess I have to ask Shunya, Jim B, and others to define "scientism", individually.

My understanding is that it is essentially empiricism/positivism.

[JimL]

You seem to assume that there are only two possible positions when it comes to the mind: physicalism and a naive version of Cartesian dualism ( ghost in the machine). Those aren't the only choices.

What are the other choices besides the physical/material and what the detractors would call spirit or immaterialism?

Even if the brain causes consciousness in some sense, or plays some causal role, that wouldn't mean that the brain IS consciousness.

I think that you are assuming that consciousness is something in and of it self, that it exists of itself. The brain doesn't cause a thing called consciousness, the brain is consciousness. No brain, no consciousness.

I was caused by my parents but I am not my parents. When I strike a match, the flame is initially caused by the friction, the chemical composition of the match head, etc, and as it continues to burn, the surrounding oxygen is its maintaining cause, but the flame is not identical to these causes.

Exept that though you were caused by your parents, you are separate from your parents, you are a thing in itself, consciousness is not separate from the brain, or a thing in itself.

There are good reasons to think that the brain cannot be the necessary and sufficient cause of consciousness, but I'll leave that for later... Can we agree that cause does not mean identity?

Thats because you are assuming that consciousness is a something, an existing thing in itself. Consciousness isn't an existing thing in itself caused by the brain, consciousness is the nature of the brain itself.

[shunyadragon]

The only physical relationship possible is a physical relationship. If physical explanations are the only possible legitimate explanations, then, guess what?, you'll end up with physical explanations. If your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Never claimed that!!! Please cite me correctly. I said . . .

"The actual physical relationship is a scientific one, where the only thing known is a causal relationship. The research concerning the brain, and the mind and consciousness has found only a direct relationship based neurological activity of our nervous system, in particular the brain. Progressively the scientific research is showing that it is the only physical relationship. The only philosophical route possible at this point is an 'argument from ignorance.' "

The problem, obviously, is that physical explanations leave out the essential part of the very thing you're trying to explain! So it cannot be a complete, satisfactory explanation without reducing the topic to the framework that one has already pre-supposed the topic must fit into. So sorry if you don't like it, but your program does smack of scientism.

Again it is unfortunate that you continue to use thise bogus layman's trash term.

There are scientists and philosophers who proudly own the term. Terms can have meanings irrespective of the motives attributed to those using that term.

Like who?!?!!? Please cite the scientists who 'proudly own this bogus layman's trash term.

.. . .and philosophical naturalism is probably not all that helpful in this discussion since belief, and lack of belief, in it are each compatible with reductionism and irreductionism about consciousness.

Philosophical (ontological naturalism) natural is the correct term and understood, where 'scientism' is bogus layman's club word does not have a clear specific intelligible meaning. Too many people use it to refer to science in general and all forms of scientific naturalism.

The scientific explanation is not the only possible explanation, neither is a philosophical explanation the only possible explanation. The scientific explanation is the only relevant explanation of a physical relationship.

[shunyadragon]

There are several kinds of reduction: causal, logical or definitional, ontological, theoretical... I think you're advocating a logical or ontological reduction (correct me if I'm wrong), similar to saying that "water" really is nothing but "H2O." That's different from saying that water is caused by H2O or dependent on H2O. Let's say we know someone named Bob Smith, known to some as Bob, others as Mr. Smith. It would be silly to say that Bob is caused by or depends upon Mr. Smith or vice versa, because the names he's known by really have the very same reference.

NO! I do not believe that the scientific explanation is the only explanation like . . . ah "water." Poor foolish simplistic analogy.

There are philosophical/theological explanations for the mind, consciousness, and the soul, and possible relationships, but the problem is there are too many, and remain grounded in many anecdotal variations of 'belief,' and not objective scientific methods. The problem with many theistic apologists is they claim that the physical relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness cannot be explained by science. Unfortunately that is no more than a anecdotal claim, and a vague 'argument from ignorance,' based on 'belief.'

I believe in the soul, but I do not try to anecdotally limit the explanation to philosophical/theological explanations, in an attempt to justify my belief and reject a naturalist explanation.

[Jim B.]

Never claimed that!!! Please cite me correctly. I said . . .

"The actual physical relationship is a scientific one, where the only thing known is a causal relationship. The research concerning the brain, and the mind and consciousness has found only a direct relationship based neurological activity of our nervous system, in particular the brain. Progressively the scientific research is showing that it is the only physical relationship. The only philosophical route possible at this point is an 'argument from ignorance.' "

Of course the physical relationship is open to scientific investigation, since physical relationships are what science investigates. If that's all you're saying, then it's pretty vacuous. It's like saying that all black cats are cats. Why would you go to the trouble of typing it? If you're drawing from this that physical relationships are all that can be known about consciousness, you haven't even begun to justify this claim. Sometimes we can know things philosophically that empirical findings aren't and cannot be decisive about. Can we know it with absolute certainty? Of course not, but then we can't know empirical findings with absolute certainty either. If you're saying that we can only 'know' empirical findings, then that's overly dogmatic. Arguments from Chalmers, Nagel, Jackson and others in favor of irreducibility are compelling imo. So it's not argument from ignorance. It's based on positive arguments. It's not the claim that we don't or cannot know x but that we can know that x is not ontologically reducible to y.

]it is unfortunate that you continue to use thise bogus layman's trash term.

Just throwing around emotionally loaded terms like "bogus layman's trash term" does not an argument make. Instead of reacting emotionally, try and tell us why you think it's a bogus layman's trash term? Is it possible to have an unjustifiably high degree of faith in science? If so, what would you call such a belief? Scientific expansionism? Scientific epistemic authority? Scientific explanatory monism? Is there a term for such a belief that would deign to accept?

Philosophical (ontological naturalism) natural is the correct term and understood, where 'scientism' is bogus layman's club word does not have a clear specific intelligible meaning. Too many people use it to refer to science in general and all forms of scientific naturalism.

The "correct term" for what, or relative to what context? As I said, ontological naturalism does not cut this question at the joints. Physicalism comes closer.

The scientific explanation is not the only possible explanation, neither is a philosophical explanation the only possible explanation. The scientific explanation is the only relevant explanation of a physical relationship.

Tautology. The question of this thread has been "Is mind/consciousness ontologically reducible to physical facts?"It is not "Are physical facts reducible to physicals facts?" the answer to which is( trivially)"yes."

[Jim B.]

NO! I do not believe that the scientific explanation is the only explanation like . . . ah "water." Poor foolish simplistic analogy.

It is foolish, but here's what you wrote above:

Simply the mind and consciousness can be reduced to neurological function of the brain and nervous system.

Given the topic of this thread, which is ontological reduction, one might think you refer to ontological reduction, which would be identity theory. If it's causal reduction, pleasespecify that that's what you're referring to and justify why you think it's causally reducible as a necessary and sufficient cause.

There are philosophical/theological explanations for the mind, consciousness, and the soul, and possible relationships, but the problem is there are too many, and remain grounded in many anecdotal variations of 'belief,' and not objective scientific methods. The problem with many theistic apologists is they claim that the physical relationship between the brain, and the mind and consciousness cannot be explained by science. Unfortunately that is no more than a anecdotal claim, and a vague 'argument from ignorance,' based on 'belief.'

Again, my point is that there are compelling arguments, positive arguments, in favor of ontological irreducibility that give the basis for knowledge at least as well justified as empirical beliefs. It's not an argument from ignorance based on belief, like many religious claims.

I believe in the soul, but I do not try to anecdotally limit the explanation to philosophical/theological explanations, in an attempt to justify my belief and reject a naturalist explanation.

The soul is a straw man. Nothing to do with anything I've written.

[JimL]

Of course the physical relationship is open to scientific investigation, since physical relationships are what science investigates. If that's all you're saying, then it's pretty vacuous. It's like saying that all black cats are cats. Why would you go to the trouble of typing it? If you're drawing from this that physical relationships are all that can be known about consciousness, you haven't even begun to justify this claim. Sometimes we can know things philosophically that empirical findings aren't and cannot be decisive about. Can we know it with absolute certainty? Of course not, but then we can't know empirical findings with absolute certainty either. If you're saying that we can only 'know' empirical findings, then that's overly dogmatic. Arguments from Chalmers, Nagel, Jackson and others in favor of irreducibility are compelling imo. So it's not argument from ignorance. It's based on positive arguments. It's not the claim that we don't or cannot know x but that we can know that x is not ontologically reducible to y.





Just throwing around emotionally loaded terms like "bogus layman's trash term" does not an argument make. Instead of reacting emotionally, try and tell us why you think it's a bogus layman's trash term? Is it possible to have an unjustifiably high degree of faith in science? If so, what would you call such a belief? Scientific expansionism? Scientific epistemic authority? Scientific explanatory monism? Is there a term for such a belief that would deign to accept?




The "correct term" for what, or relative to what context? As I said, ontological naturalism does not cut this question at the joints. Physicalism comes closer.



Tautology. The question of this thread has been "Is mind/consciousness ontologically reducible to physical facts?"It is not "Are physical facts reducible to physicals facts?" the answer to which is( trivially)"yes."

Perhaps J.B. you could give us a definition for the thing you are defending? Whether you believe mind/consciousness is a thing emergent of, or irreducible to, the brain or not, how would you define it as a thing in itself.
You seem to be suggesting that it isn't the physical brain that is conscious, that it is some thing that emerges from the brain, i.e. a mind that is conscious. Maybe I am not understanding you, but you also seem hesitant to call this thing a soul, so what exactly is it, or how exactly would you define this thing you are arguing for?

[shunyadragon]

It is foolish, but here's what you wrote above:

Simply the mind and consciousness can be reduced to neurological function of the brain and nervous system.

This citation does not necessarily refer to ontological reduction. I was simply referring to reductionism. You are taking my reference out of context of my other posts.

Given the topic of this thread, which is ontological reduction, one might think you refer to ontological reduction, which would be identity theory. If it's causal reduction, please specify that that's what you're referring to and justify why you think it's causally reducible as a necessary and sufficient cause.

I do not believe the topic of the thread only specified 'ontological reductionism.'

In terms of the methodological naturalism methods of science it is not strictly an ontological reduction as the only explanation.

It is not foolish if you care to read my posts as a whole. This reference clearly refers to the possible reduction of the function of the mind and consciousness to the physical brain. Nothing here indicates that it is the only possible explanation.

The topic of the thread is not whether ontological reductionism is true. There are clearly three types of reductionism: (1) Ontological. (2) Methodological. (3) Epistemological. I am arguing for 'Methodological Reductionism.' See below for clarification.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reduction-biology/

(i) Ontological reduction is the idea that each particular biological system (e.g., an organism) is constituted by nothing but molecules and their interactions. In metaphysics this idea is often called physicalism (or materialism), which assumes in a biological context that (a) biological properties supervene on physical properties (i.e., no difference in a biological property without a difference in some underlying physical property), and (b) each particular biological process (or token) is metaphysically identical to some particular physico-chemical process. This latter tenet is sometimes called token-token reduction, in contrast to the stronger tenet that each type of biological process is identical to a type of physico-chemical process.

(ii) Methodological reduction is the idea that biological systems are most fruitfully investigated at the lowest possible level, and that experimental studies should be aimed at uncovering molecular and biochemical causes. A common example of this type of strategy is the decomposition of a complex system into parts (Bechtel and Richardson 1993); a biologist might investigate the cellular parts of an organism in order to comprehend its behavior, or investigate the biochemical components of a cell to understand its features.

© Copyright Original Source

In fact, if read the opening post I believe it clearly refers to 'methodological naturalism.'

Mind is not reduceable to brain

Before reading all of this you really should read my essay on Mind not reducible to brain to get a good background,

Empirical Data:

There is No Empirical Data that proves reducibility.

[EvoUK]

I haven't been able to get to my PC to respond much this week.

I have read through the comments after my last post, but if you feel I have missed anything important, please point me to the post number in question and I'll be happy to respond.

Evo Uk you keep putting in these qualifiers attributed to me such as Brain and mind have nothing to do wi9th each other., I did not say thyat.l two points you just don't get

(1) the epistemological problem you can't overcome--you can't turn correlation into cause--limits your ability to argue the brain damage argument as proof of reducibility. I don't have to disprove that, you do. It's a logical limit on proving cause and you must get over it to make your argument work. I don't have to disprove cause. you must prove it.

(2) IU don't have to prove there a magic entity called the soul that live on after death, I only argued that mind is not reducible to brain. I have given evince of that and it's evidence you can't answer.

Given that mind is not reducible the possibility of LAD is raised but I don't have to defend it because that's not the claim I made ion the OP.

enough of the smoke and mirrors you can't prove reducibility.

The point being that I haven't seen any justification for the premise that the mind is somehow separate from the brain. The points I have been sighting actually point to the opposite - that it is entirely dependant upon the brain. I see no reason to tack on extras to this - such as the mind being separate somehow, thus meaning that the brain only allows access.

I do note that we are in Philosophy 201, and so the argument you are making is a largely unprovable philosophical/metaphysical one. This in and of itself I suppose is no bad thing, however you are trying to suggest that the evidence points towards your conclusion. I am simply noting that this is not the case. At best the evidence is neutral towards your conclusion, as science has no say on dualism, nor ontological naturalism.

If I were to argue from my personal viewpoint, I would say that not only is your idea unprovable, but it is also unnecessary.

[metacrock]

I haven't been able to get to my PC to respond much this week.

I have read through the comments after my last post, but if you feel I have missed anything important, please point me to the post number in question and I'll be happy to respond.



The point being that I haven't seen any justification for the premise that the mind is somehow separate from the brain. The points I have been sighting actually point to the opposite - that it is entirely dependant upon the brain. I see no reason to tack on extras to this - such as the mind being separate somehow, thus meaning that the brain only allows access.

apparently you haven't looked I suggest you read the original post as you should have done because I have six points backed by journal articles.

I do note that we are in Philosophy 201, and so the argument you are making is a largely unprovable philosophical/metaphysical one. This in and of itself I suppose is no bad thing, however you are trying to suggest that the evidence points towards your conclusion. I am simply noting that this is not the case. At best the evidence is neutral towards your conclusion, as science has no say on dualism, nor ontological naturalism.

http://modernpsychologist.ca/the-min...-to-the-brain/http://newhumanist.org.uk/2172/neurotrashhttp://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=200