Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

[Sparko]

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.

So all that other stuff isn't mental?

Maybe you should explain mental. The dictionary just says 'relating to the mind'

So that's kind of a circular reasoning there on your part. The mind is the part relating to the mind?

Why isn't regulating your heartbeat a mental activity? The brain is doing it. You said the mind is what the brain does.

[Sparko]

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.

You didn't answer anything. If the brain is the source of the mind, and the mind is just being generated by brain activity, then how does the mind control the brain? That would be like having the light control the lightbulb that is generating it.

If the mind is merely an effect of the brain, then how can YOU (your self, your mind) decide what you want to think about (which would involve consciously firing various neurons to create those thoughts or recall memories) - your conscious mind actually is controlling the firing of the neurons in your brain, not the other way around. When you decide to move your arm, your MIND tells your brain to fire the motor neurons in your motor cortex which then stimulates the proper nerves which move the muscles in your arm. You mind initiate the action. It controlled your brain, not the other way around.

[Sparko]

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

Let's say you can only communicate with others through a shortwave radio. If something damages the radio, you will have difficulty communicating with people. If the radio is destroyed you will lose all communication with them. That doesn't mean YOU are the radio. Or destroying the radio killed you. Someone could even hook up instruments to that radio and watch the electrical circuits correspond to your voice and how they are turned into sounds. They could cut a wire to the speaker and see that the electrical connections and patterns are still there, but not hear you. Or if they disconnect the antenna they would see the radio is functioning perfectly but no longer communicating with them. Like being brain dead.

Maybe the brain is like a tranceiver for the soul.

[JonathanL]

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.

There's no credible reason to think the mind is the brain in action, that's just your own interpretation of the evidence, whoolly unsupported by the evidence.

There is no evidence that the mind ceases to exist when the brain dies either, that's just another one of your unwarranted presuppositions.

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

What it all comes down to in the end is that you have no evidence what so ever of your view that the mind is identical with "the brain in action", given that all the data you've mentioned so far fits the view that the mind is immaterial just as well, you hold to it because of your presuppositions.

[Tassman]

There's no credible reason to think the mind is the brain in action, that's just your own interpretation of the evidence, whoolly unsupported by the evidence.

more than the brain in action

There is no evidence that the mind ceases to exist when the brain dies either, that's just another one of your unwarranted presuppositions.

There is no evidence that the mind does not cease to exist when the brain dies. What about other sentient creatures, do their minds cease to exist at death?

What it all comes down to in the end is that you have no evidence what so ever of your view that the mind is identical with "the brain in action", given that all the data you've mentioned so far fits the view that the mind is immaterial just as well, you hold to it because of your presuppositions.

It is the notion of an immaterial soul interacting with the material brain that is the presupposition; it is grounded in religious belief not science. Why should the brain be the only complex material object in the universe to have an interface with an immaterial realm of being such as a soul?

[JimL]

You didn't answer anything. If the brain is the source of the mind, and the mind is just being generated by brain activity, then how does the mind control the brain? That would be like having the light control the lightbulb that is generating it.

There are assumptions here that without first assuming, would make the question you're asking illogical. You are still assuming that what we call the mind is an existing thing in itself. Brain function, the mind, is not a thing in itself. The mind isn't being generated by brain activity, the mind is the brain in action.

If the mind is merely an effect of the brain, then how can YOU (your self, your mind) decide what you want to think about (which would involve consciously firing various neurons to create those thoughts or recall memories) - your conscious mind actually is controlling the firing of the neurons in your brain, not the other way around. When you decide to move your arm, your MIND tells your brain to fire the motor neurons in your motor cortex which then stimulates the proper nerves which move the muscles in your arm. You mind initiate the action. It controlled your brain, not the other way around.

Because, from my perspective, you, as has been stated many times, are your brain. When your brain decides what to think, that is you deciding what to think. When you die, when your brain dies, then you no longer decide what to think.

[JonathanL]

more than the brain in action

Of course there is. A simple analysis of the mind shows that the belief that it is nothing more than "the brain in action" is patently absurd:

The mind is subjective in the sense that it is accessible only through introspection by person to which the mind belongs. In other words, the mind can "turn in" on itself, so to speak, and study itself. No human has direct access to anyone's mind but their own. This also includes mental faculties such as memories, sensory experiences, thoughts and so forth. No one else can directly experience the memories, sensations and thoughts that someone experiences in the same way as the person who originally experienced them.

The brain on the other hand, exists in the material world and can, unlike the mind, be studied by anyone with the right technical equipment. Everything about the brain and it's inner workings are accessible to anyone, as long they have the right tools to study it. Unlike the mind there's nothing special about the brain that would preclude anyone but the owner of brain to study a certain aspect of it.

There is no evidence that the mind does not cease to exist when the brain dies. What about other sentient creatures, do their minds cease to exist at death?

That question is completely irrelevant and has no bearing what so ever on the issue. Whether or not the minds of other sentient creatures cease to exist at death doesn't change anything about whether human minds cease to exist when the body/brain dies.

It is the notion of an immaterial soul interacting with the material brain that is the presupposition; it is grounded in religious belief not science. Why should the brain be the only complex material object in the universe to have an interface with an immaterial realm of being such as a soul?

Again, a completely irrelevant question that has no bearing what so ever to the discussion. The relevant question is not "Why should the brain be the only complex material object in the universe to have an interface with an immaterial realm of being such as a soul?", but rather if the brain is a complex material object that has an interface with an immaterial realm of being.

And science isn't the only arbiter of truth. And in this case specifically science is unable to determine the truth, because science cannot even in principle study minds other than their own directly, for reasons which I outlined above (which is that the mind is directly inaccessible to anyone but itself). In this question scientists must rely on secondhand data, such as self-reporting by their test subjects, and in many cases they have no way of verifying the accuracy of these self-reports and must simply trust that they are given accurate information.

[Tassman]

Of course there is. A simple analysis of the mind shows that the belief that it is nothing more than "the brain in action" is patently absurd:

The mind is subjective in the sense that it is accessible only through introspection by person to which the mind belongs. In other words, the mind can "turn in" on itself, so to speak, and study itself. No human has direct access to anyone's mind but their own. This also includes mental faculties such as memories, sensory experiences, thoughts and so forth. No one else can directly experience the memories, sensations and thoughts that someone experiences in the same way as the person who originally experienced them.

The brain on the other hand, exists in the material world and can, unlike the mind, be studied by anyone with the right technical equipment. Everything about the brain and it's inner workings are accessible to anyone, as long they have the right tools to study it. Unlike the mind there's nothing special about the brain that would preclude anyone but the owner of brain to study a certain aspect of it.

That question is completely irrelevant and has no bearing what so ever on the issue. Whether or not the minds of other sentient creatures cease to exist at death doesn't change anything about whether human minds cease to exist when the body/brain dies.

Again, a completely irrelevant question that has no bearing what so ever to the discussion. The relevant question is not "Why should the brain be the only complex material object in the universe to have an interface with an immaterial realm of being such as a soul?", but rather if the brain is a complex material object that has an interface with an immaterial realm of being.

There is no good reason to assume that the material brain interacts with an immaterial entity of any sort.

And science isn't the only arbiter of truth. And in this case specifically science is unable to determine the truth, because science cannot even in principle study minds other than their own directly, for reasons which I outlined above (which is that the mind is directly inaccessible to anyone but itself). In this question scientists must rely on secondhand data, such as self-reporting by their test subjects, and in many cases they have no way of verifying the accuracy of these self-reports and must simply trust that they are given accurate information.

Many studies have been done re the effects of brain damage resulting from trauma or dementia etc and the subsequent change, sometimes dramatic, to the person so affected. The bottom line is that the mind has a direct corollary with the state of the brain.

[JonathanL]

Which is not the same thing at all as "the mind is just the brain in action".

This is yet another non-argument.

There is no good reason to assume that the material brain interacts with an immaterial entity of any sort.

Proposing that the mind is material is patently absurd. There is nothing else material that we know of that comes close to having even remotely similar properties to the mind.

The very fact that it's impossible to directly observe someone elses mind in the physical realm is a pretty strong indication that it is something immaterial. If the mind is material it should be directly observable by anyone with the proper equipment, not just by itself. But we know by the subjective nature of the mind that this is simply impossible.

Many studies have been done re the effects of brain damage resulting from trauma or dementia etc and the subsequent change, sometimes dramatic, to the person so affected. The bottom line is that the mind has a direct corollary with the state of the brain.

Which is not what's in dispute at all and is not an argument at all for believing the mind is material.

[Tassman]

Which is not the same thing at all as "the mind is just the brain in action".

To say that the mind is more

This is yet another non-argument.

or the many human species that preceded us, e.g. Neanderthall man.

Proposing that the mind is material is patently absurd. There is nothing else material that we know of that comes close to having even remotely similar properties to the mind.

What is "absurd" is proposing the logical incoherent notion that that the mind is an 'immaterial entity' which somehow interacts with the 'material brain'. There is no credible evidence of this.

The very fact that it's impossible to directly observe someone elses mind in the physical realm is a pretty strong indication that it is something immaterial. If the mind is material it should be directly observable by anyone with the proper equipment, not just by itself. But we know by the subjective nature of the mind that this is simply impossible.

It may be difficult but, not impossible, e.g. Neuroimaging the brain has potential to study the mind as preliminary studies tell us.

Which is not what's in dispute at all and is not an argument at all for believing the mind is material.

[JonathanL]

To say that the mind is more

But I did. In post #72 where I mentioned some of the differences between the brain and the mind. Basic logic tells unless two things have the exact same properties then they cannot possibly be the same thing. The "brain in action" and the mind do not have exactly the same properties, therefore they're not the same.

or the many human species that preceded us, e.g. Neanderthall man.

It makes no difference what so ever to the issue of whether or not our minds are immaterial whether or not our brains are different from primates or now extinct human species.

What is "absurd" is proposing the logical incoherent notion that that the mind is an 'immaterial entity' which somehow interacts with the 'material brain'. There is no credible evidence of this.

There's nothing logically incoherent about it at all. Whether or not a statement is logically incoherent or not has nothing at all to do with whether or not there's credible evidence for it.

It may be difficult but, not impossible, e.g. Neuroimaging the brain has potential to study the mind as preliminary studies tell us.

No, it doesn't. Studying which parts of the nervous systems are active when different mental faculties are engaged is not the same thing as studying these mental faculties, or the mind, directly.

I'm not making any sort of claim to the exact nature between the relationship between the brain and an immaterial mind. And whether or not changes in the brain leads to an altered mind is irrelevant to the question of what the mind subsists of.

[Tassman]

But I did. In post #72 where I mentioned some of the differences between the brain and the mind. Basic logic tells unless two things have the exact same properties then they cannot possibly be the same thing. The "brain in action" and the mind do not have exactly the same properties, therefore they're not the same.

The 'brain in action' and 'the mind' may not have exactly the same properties, but all indications are that the latter derives from the former and could not exist without it.

It makes no difference what so ever to the issue of whether or not our minds are immaterial whether or not our brains are different from primates or now extinct human species.

There's nothing logically incoherent about it at all. Whether or not a statement is logically incoherent or not has nothing at all to do with whether or not there's credible evidence for it.

No, it doesn't. Studying which parts of the nervous systems are active when different mental faculties are engaged is not the same thing as studying these mental faculties, or the mind, directly.

I'm not making any sort of claim to the exact nature between the relationship between the brain and an immaterial mind. And whether or not changes in the brain leads to an altered mind is irrelevant to the question of what the mind subsists of.

[JonathanL]

The 'brain in action' and 'the mind' may not have exactly the same properties, but all indications are that the latter derives from the former and could not exist without it.

All indications are that the brain and the mind is connected somehow. There is no indications what so ever that the mind derives from the the brain.

I'm claiming that we humans possess an immaterial mind. I'm making no claim what so ever as to the nature of the minds of any other species of animals.

I don't know where and exactly how the connection occurs. But I don't need to know exactly how the two are connected to be justified in believing that the mind is immaterial, and that there is some kind of connection between the mind and the brain.

There's a relation alright. But the assertion that the existence of the mind depends on the brain is not obvious at all.

If the mind was material/existed in the material world it should be perceptible through our senses, or detectable using some sort of measuring instrument (and no, measuring brain activity is not the same as measuring the mind). This is obviously not the case, which strongly indicates that the mind is not material.

[Tassman]

All indications are that the brain and the mind is connected somehow. There is no indications what so ever that the mind derives from the the brain.

The indications are that the mind derives from the brain, no brain, no mind.

I'm claiming that we humans possess an immaterial mind. I'm making no claim what so ever as to the nature of the minds of any other species of animals.

Why not, given the similarities, on what basis are you claiming that Homo sapiens are unique in this regard?

I don't know where and exactly how the connection occurs. But I don't need to know exactly how the two are connected to be justified in believing that the mind is immaterial, and that there is some kind of connection between the mind and the brain.

There's a relation alright. But the assertion that the existence of the mind depends on the brain is not obvious at all.

The brain IS the mind. When it goes the mind goes and before it comes on, there is no mind.

If the mind was material/existed in the material world it should be perceptible through our senses, or detectable using some sort of measuring instrument (and no, measuring brain activity is not the same as measuring the mind). This is obviously not the case, which strongly indicates that the mind is not material.

This is an argument from ignorance based on presuppositions

[JimL]

IS the mind. When it goes the mind goes and before it comes on, there is no mind.



This is an argument from ignorance based on presuppositions

I guess it's what the ghost in the machine folks would call a (properly basic belief.)