Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

[JimL]

Jim, explain what you mean by "mind"? what is a mind?

We've already explained that Sparko, the mind, in my opinion, is just a name for what the brain does. I understand your view is that the mind is a sort of ghost, an immaterial entity, that needs a physical brain in order to think. What does this ghost do when it is without it's brain?

[Tassman]

Except that even the most cursory analysis of the different properties of the mind and of the brain pretty clearly demonstrates that the brain and the mind is not identical, at all.

In fact, I would even go as far as to say that not even the brain activity itself is identical with the mind. To demonstrate otherwise you'd have to show that there's a one-to-one correspondence between either the properties of the mind and the properties of the brain, or the properties of the mind and the properties of your neurological activity.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0210124757.htm

[JonathanL]

Yes we do, there is plenty of evidence of existing physical brain/minds, but there is no evidence of immaterial brainless minds. Mindless brains, maybe, but no brainless minds.

No we don't. We might lack evidence that minds can exist without a brain*, but we don't have a single shred of positive evidence that the mind stops existing when the brain dies.

We know that minds can exist connected to brains. We do not however, know that this is the only way in which minds can exist, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.






*although that isn't entirely true, out-of-body and near-death experiences are evidence that minds can exist without the brain. Even if you might not think that it's very strong evidence it's still evidence.

[JonathanL]

Unsubstantiated assertions. There's no good reason to prefer the view you present over the view that these cognitive faculties you mention above, rather than being parts of the brain, are aspects of the mind as an immaterial entity, and that even if there is a connection between different parts of the brain and these cognitive faculties, it does not establish that they are identical with each other.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0210124757.htm

This shows that there's a connection of some sort between the brain/neurological activity and the mind. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination show that they are identical. Trying to use neuroscientific studies to show that a mind is just "a brain in action" would be to go way beyond what the evidence warrants.

[JimL]

Unsubstantiated assertions. There's no good reason to prefer the view you present over the view that these cognitive faculties you mention above, rather than being parts of the brain, are aspects of the mind as an immaterial entity, and that even if there is a connection between different parts of the brain and these cognitive faculties, it does not establish that they are identical with each other.

Yes, there is good reason. If, as you believe, the mind is distinct from the brain, and that the cognitive faculties are aspects of that mind, then there would be no purpose for the evolution of, or the existence of, the physical brain.

This shows that there's a connection of some sort between the brain/neurological activity and the mind. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination show that they are identical. Trying to use neuroscientific studies to show that a mind is just "a brain in action" would be to go way beyond what the evidence warrants.

There is no evidence of a distinct and immaterial mind, what we see is the brain and its neurological function, the latter of which, i.e. the cognitive product of the brain, we signify with the term "mind". Your ghost, which you argue is a mind, is actually a sort of mindless entity. How would you define it without it's physical brain?

[JimL]

No we don't. We might lack evidence that minds can exist without a brain*, but we don't have a single shred of positive evidence that the mind stops existing when the brain dies.

What we don't have is a shred of evidence that your immaterial mind exists in the first place.

We know that minds can exist connected to brains. We do not however, know that this is the only way in which minds can exist, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Your first mistake is in assuming that distinct minds exist in the first place. The brain exists, what the brain does, is what we call the mind, and you and others then make the assumption that the mind is a ghost in the brain pulling levers and whatnot.

[Sparko]

We've already explained that Sparko, the mind, in my opinion, is just a name for what the brain does. I understand your view is that the mind is a sort of ghost, an immaterial entity, that needs a physical brain in order to think. What does this ghost do when it is without it's brain?

The brain does a lot of stuff. It regulates heartbeat, breathing, hormones, movement, sleep, etc. Is that a "mind"? It also metabolizes sugars and exchanges oxygen and waste products. Is that a mind?



Does a mouse have a mind?

Does a spider have a mind?

What is a mind, JimL. "what the brain does" is not an answer.

[Sparko]

JimL, do you believe science will one day be able to upload a mind into a computer?


https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35786771

[seer]

JimL, do you believe science will one day be able to upload a mind into a computer?


https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35786771

Interesting, from your link:

The theoretical possibility Randal refers to is rooted in questions about how our brains work that neuroscience has yet to answer. Our brains are made up of about 86 billion neurons, connected cells that send information to each other by firing electrical charges that propagate through this organ in our skulls like waves.

But exactly how the brain generates our mind is a mystery like no other in science, according to the neurobiologist Prof Rafael Yuste of Columbia University. "The challenge is precisely how to go from a physical substrate of cells that are connected inside this organ, to our mental world, our thoughts, our memories, our feelings," he says.

[Sparko]

Interesting, from your link:

Also if the mind is just reactionary to various neurons firing at various times, how is it that our minds can consciously make decisions to do actions, or even decide what we want to think about? What is making the decision? Where does the sense of "self" come from, the "me" that is deciding what to think about, what do do. The mind determines what neurons to fire, not the brain. I can try to remember something and then my mind goes out and fires up the neurons that contain that memory. My mind caused the memory to be recalled, not the other way around. So the mind is in control of the physical brain, not the other way around.

[JimL]

The brain does a lot of stuff. It regulates heartbeat, breathing, hormones, movement, sleep, etc. Is that a "mind"? It also metabolizes sugars and exchanges oxygen and waste products. Is that a mind?



Does a mouse have a mind?

Does a spider have a mind?

What is a mind, JimL. "what the brain does" is not an answer.

The mental aspect of what the brain does sparko, that is the mind. To the extent that a mouse or a spider brain functions mentally, that would be what we would call their mind.

[Tassman]

Unsubstantiated assertions. There's no good reason to prefer the view you present over the view that these cognitive faculties you mention above, rather than being parts of the brain, are aspects of the mind as an immaterial entity, and that even if there is a connection between different parts of the brain and these cognitive faculties, it does not establish that they are identical with each other.

This shows that there's a connection of some sort between the brain/neurological activity and the mind. It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination show that they are identical. Trying to use neuroscientific studies to show that a mind is just "a brain in action" would be to go way beyond what the evidence warrants.

no evidence of a connection between immaterial mind/soul and the material brain as posited by theists.

[JimL]

Also if the mind is just reactionary to various neurons firing at various times, how is it that our minds can consciously make decisions to do actions, or even decide what we want to think about? What is making the decision? Where does the sense of "self" come from, the "me" that is deciding what to think about, what do do. The mind determines what neurons to fire, not the brain. I can try to remember something and then my mind goes out and fires up the neurons that contain that memory. My mind caused the memory to be recalled, not the other way around. So the mind is in control of the physical brain, not the other way around.

Since the mind and the brain and the I, are all one in the same thing, you are, to a degree, correct. They are all you, and so it is you, you are the mind/brain who is the cause of yourself doing whatever it is that you do. You also have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is this ghostly entity sitting Descarte like somewhere in your head pushing buttons.

[JonathanL]

That's not a substantiation of your claim that the brain and mind (or neurological activity and the mind, choose whichever position is closest to your own) is identical, it's substantiation that there's a connection between the mind and the brain, something which people on both sides of the issue agree on, unless they're ignorant or blithering idiots.

It shows there is a physicalno evidence of a connection between immaterial mind/soul and the material brain as posited by theists.

Well, no, it doesn't show that the connection is physical at all. It shows that there is a connection between the brain's neurological activity and the mind. The brain's neurological activity is physical. The view that the actual connection between this neurological activity and the mind is physical is an unsupported assumption you make based not on the evidence, but because of your atheistic worldview.

[Tassman]

That's not a substantiation of your claim that the brain and mind (or neurological activity and the mind, choose whichever position is closest to your own) is identical, it's substantiation that there's a connection between the mind and the brain, something which people on both sides of the issue agree on, unless they're ignorant or blithering idiots.

Yes, of course. The 'mind' is the brain in action, there is no credible reason to think there is any more to it than this.

Well, no, it doesn't show that the connection is physical at all. It shows that there is a connection between the brain's neurological activity and the mind.

The brain's neurological activity is physical. The view that the actual connection between this neurological activity and the mind is physical is an unsupported assumption you make based not on the evidence, but because of your atheistic worldview.

What is not supported by evidence is the notion of an immaterial mind somehow connected to the material brain via non-physical means.