tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1595285870401537774..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Brain WarsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger39125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89943334568253434372012-09-25T06:35:06.170-07:002012-09-25T06:35:06.170-07:00cl: I think mental causation is a problem for ever...cl: I think mental causation is a problem for every view of mind (all dualisms, materialisms) that are not idealist or eliminativist in flavor. I.e., all reasonable views of mind.<br /><br />Epiphenomenalism I see as a reductio of itself (though note it is orthogonal to dualism/materialism--you can be a dualist epiphenomenalist, in fact most property dualists are stuck there).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48533388751763091002012-09-24T07:11:52.615-07:002012-09-24T07:11:52.615-07:00ozero91, no I have not. It sounds very interesting...ozero91, no I have not. It sounds very interesting. I have added it to my wishlist. Thanks for the recommendation.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60026367906097093512012-09-24T07:10:16.156-07:002012-09-24T07:10:16.156-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59224751578074935192012-09-23T15:26:52.597-07:002012-09-23T15:26:52.597-07:00Daniel, have you read The waning of materialism, b...Daniel, have you read The waning of materialism, by any chance? It's a fairly recent collection of essays concerning philosophy of the mind.ozero91https://www.blogger.com/profile/15383910270101919080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78048731368140385782012-09-23T13:27:02.569-07:002012-09-23T13:27:02.569-07:00Regarding, where the mind resides, I hold the mate...Regarding, where the mind resides, I hold the materialist view that the mind is the product of the brain. Of course, this is a topic where there is much unknown. But it's fair to say that the dualist position enjoys no greater scientific support. If you are a dualist, it's easy to see this material as consistent with that view. The same can be said for a materialist.<br /><br />You may not have seen my comment in the other thread. As I read the book, I was trying to see if he said anything that specifically shows that the mind is non-material. I didn't see it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75869675031167783112012-09-23T13:12:05.737-07:002012-09-23T13:12:05.737-07:00im-skeptical,
I think that would be a pretty good...im-skeptical,<br /><br />I think that would be a pretty good assessment. <br /><br />In the book Dr. Beauregard wrote - "Increasingly, we are seeing evidence that the mind also affects gene expression— the process of how a gene works within a cell. Each cell in the human body contains several thousand genes, but not all of them are active at the same time. Within any given cell, some genes will be expressed (or 'on') while other genes will not be expressed (they are said to be 'off'). Genes that are turned 'on' may somehow alter, for instance, our body’s response to stress."Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71352522942273981952012-09-23T13:06:45.629-07:002012-09-23T13:06:45.629-07:00Daniel,
The article talks about changes in gene e...Daniel,<br /><br />The article talks about changes in gene expression, which sounds more like changes in metabolic function than modifying the genetic code. I'll reserve further comment on that until I learn more about what he's really saying.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71297029571258049412012-09-23T12:43:01.494-07:002012-09-23T12:43:01.494-07:00im-skeptical,
By the way, I should have wrote, &q...im-skeptical,<br /><br />By the way, I should have wrote, "gene expression." More accurate but not much different. Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67795744454752102762012-09-23T12:41:58.582-07:002012-09-23T12:41:58.582-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8944045700388023302012-09-23T12:39:49.021-07:002012-09-23T12:39:49.021-07:00"Why should you be surprised that I read a bo...<i>"Why should you be surprised that I read a book? Do I seem that uninformed? I advise everyone to read things that might challenge their beliefs."</i><br /><br />I was complimenting you. I was glad that you read it so we could discuss it further. I don't pretend to have all the answers or to be able to read and learn everything completely objectively. I appreciate that you read it and that you are discussing it with me. In my experience people don't take up on such an opportunity. Also, you got it done quick! :)<br /><br /><i>"The brain creates our conscious state. Our conscious state can in turn influence the body and the brain itself"</i><br /><br />Hmm...considering the limited knowledge on consciousness, where it resides, etc etc. This seems a little suspicious. I would be a little more persuaded if you pointed to a particular area of the brain not subject to such change, like the central cortex (which I do not believe undergoes such changes). Even so, I do not believe one has shown that consciousness truly resides there. I wish BDK was here for this one. <br /><br /><i>"I don't believe it. No citation given."</i><br /><br />It was on page 97 of the kindle edition of brain wars in relation to studies by Psychologist Jeffery Dusek and his colleagues at Harvard Medical School. <br /><br />Cite below...<br /><br />Beauregard, Mario (2012-04-24). Brain Wars: The Scientific Battle Over the Existence of the Mind and the Proof That Will Change the Way We Live Our Lives (p. 97). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1046799581865253172012-09-23T12:26:57.185-07:002012-09-23T12:26:57.185-07:00Daniel,
Why should you be surprised that I read a...Daniel,<br /><br />Why should you be surprised that I read a book? Do I seem that uninformed? I advise everyone to read things that might challenge their beliefs.<br /><br />"you don't think it is detrimental to mental materialism that our conscious will and mental intentionality can affect the brain itself (neural plasticity)"<br /><br />- Absolutely not. Actually, it's the other way around. The brain creates our conscious state. Our conscious state can in turn influence the body and the brain itself. Nothing there that needs a non-material explanation.<br /><br />"and even cause activation (or non-activation) of certain genes?"<br /><br />- I don't believe it. No citation given.<br /><br />This book contains no new scientific findings, and some material that is dubious. It speaks of mystical experiences, (which I don't question), but assumes without any supporting evidence that there is something non-material behind it. Where is the evidence? All the real evidence he provides tends to support the physicality of the mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42583804444171787752012-09-23T12:10:40.291-07:002012-09-23T12:10:40.291-07:00Zach, before anything else I should point out that...Zach, before anything else I should point out that Pinker does agree with neural plasticity to some extant, he just describes it as a change due to learning. Something has to "change" for learning to be possible, which makes sense. So, I don't know what led me to that mistake but it was a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.<br /><br />I agree with you in relation to qualia and conscience thought as true problems for completely materialistic conceptions of the mind.<br /><br />I also did point out that Dr. Beauregard's point's were not a "nail" in the coffin for material conceptions of the mind. The science however is not affirming materialism by any means, and could lead one to doubt solely material conceptions of the mind. <br /><br />Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18337045047144724402012-09-23T10:32:37.655-07:002012-09-23T10:32:37.655-07:00Zach,
Do you believe the things I mention are onl...<b>Zach</b>,<br /><br />Do you believe the things I mention are only problems for epiphenomenalists? If so, what other types of materialist are they problems for, and why? If not, why not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6344479172631139042012-09-23T10:18:28.702-07:002012-09-23T10:18:28.702-07:00cl: hopefully nobody here is advocating ephiphenom...cl: hopefully nobody here is advocating ephiphenomenalism. Most materialists, even, are not epiphenomenalists. The only people that are have obviously become wedded to a silly view from which epiphenomenalism is a consequence. That is sufficient to reject the original view!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72354180416915776002012-09-23T10:13:15.136-07:002012-09-23T10:13:15.136-07:00ozero91,
"If a person's brain was replac...<b>ozero91</b>,<br /><br /><i>"If a person's brain was replaced with a silicon network of "neurons" which were functionally identical to organic neurons, would the person notice any difference?"</i><br /><br />Taking that one step further, is it even possible, in principle, to verify a difference? After all, we can only rely on the perception of the subject. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62080291176666731222012-09-23T10:11:21.045-07:002012-09-23T10:11:21.045-07:00Daniel Anderson,
Your comments bring to mind some...<b>Daniel Anderson</b>,<br /><br />Your comments bring to mind something I've been thinking about lately WRT epiphenomenalism. Those who hold that view claim that the activity of the mind is merely a sort of neurological steam release. Here's how Stanford defines it: "the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, <b>but have no effects upon any physical events</b>."<br /><br />Doesn't the bolded part strike you as falsified in so many ways? For example,<br /><br />1) Google around for research on the way thinking can affect the brain and body. That is an instance of the "mental" affecting the "physical."<br /><br />2) If the mental cannot affect the physical, how do actors learn to cry on command? <br /><br />3) If the mental cannot affect the physical, then how can people move objects using thought, either aided or unaided?<br /><br />Etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21553906517004889382012-09-23T09:43:16.006-07:002012-09-23T09:43:16.006-07:00ozero91: like implanting an artificial heart, ther...ozero91: like implanting an artificial heart, there are higher-level features that are important, it may not be the molecules that are relevant, but the spatiotemporal organization, information-processing facts, etc.. This doesn't mean it is a mystery any more than a pump (pumps are also multiply realizable).<br /><br />The problem with qualia, unlike the pump, is that there is no intelligible link from the machinery (even if you include its organization and information-processing facts) to qualia. No need for weird neuron-replacing thought experiments to see this, IMHO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64990395431376744622012-09-23T08:41:40.948-07:002012-09-23T08:41:40.948-07:00If a person's brain was replaced with a silico...If a person's brain was replaced with a silicon network of "neurons" which were functionally identical to organic neurons, would the person notice any difference? The physicalist, I think, would say that there would be no difference. But the problem would still remain, we still would not know how consciousness (or the illusion of consciousness), qualia, intentionality and free will (or the illusion of free will) arise from matter.ozero91https://www.blogger.com/profile/15383910270101919080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4759800351608364842012-09-23T08:28:08.140-07:002012-09-23T08:28:08.140-07:00Daniel:
"So, you don't think it is detrim...Daniel:<br />"So, you don't think it is detrimental to mental materialism that our conscious will and mental intentionality can affect the brain itself (neural plasticity) and even cause activation (or non-activation) of certain genes?"<br /><br />These examples like plasticity are not very strong if they are meant to cast doubt on materialism.<br /><br />Neural plasticity is studied extensively by neuroscience, and is not some anomaly ignored (and I guarantee Pinker doesn't think neural plasticity is "false"). Google long-term potentiation.<br /><br />The mind does influence the brain. But for the materialist, the mind just is the brain at some level, so they are fine with the mind (i.e., the brain) influencing the brain!<br /><br />If you <i>assume</i> some kind of dualism, then of course the mind influencing the brain is strange for materialists. But this would just beg the question.<br /><br />The big problem for materialists is qualia. Why is there something it is like for your brain to be in state X? This is the fundamental question they fail with, something Descartes and Leibniz saw.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73266540494166363592012-09-22T20:57:23.053-07:002012-09-22T20:57:23.053-07:00im-skeptical,
That's awesome that you read it...im-skeptical,<br /><br />That's awesome that you read it. I'm impressed, seriously. <br /><br />So, you don't think it is detrimental to mental materialism that our conscious will and mental intentionality can affect the brain itself (neural plasticity) and even cause activation (or non-activation) of certain genes? I never said the book was a nail in the coffin. I just felt that it gave reason to doubt positions that do promote a materialistic mind. <br /><br />Take The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker for example. Now, I actually really liked the book and I learned a lot from it. However, he took a very opposite stance to Dr. Beauregard, based on incomplete science that Brain Wars discusses. For him, mental materialism was all but proven with the influence our genetics have on the shape of our brain and therefore our behavior. He spent an awful lot of time claiming that "the ghost" was "exonerated" because neural plasticity was false and because we can not control the behavior influenced by our genes. So what does mental materialism look like to you? A view that hasn't proved a mind/brain dualism? <br /><br />I can see how someone can take a skeptical position between the views. However, if new scientific findings come along which undermines the reasoning of others in favor of mental materialism then I think it is good reason to doubt mental materialism. Don't you?Anthony Fleminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11726267495699324589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72997762809701060502012-09-22T12:56:01.651-07:002012-09-22T12:56:01.651-07:00Zach,
"Does anyone know any of the detailed ...Zach,<br /><br />"Does anyone know any of the detailed arguments the author uses that is compelling? Anything specific about how scientific documented mental phenomena as detrimental to materialistic views of the mind?"<br /><br />No.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17270740381061459572012-09-22T09:16:50.041-07:002012-09-22T09:16:50.041-07:00Cole,
"If it's beyond space-time then it...<b>Cole</b>,<br /><br />"<i>If it's beyond space-time then it wouldn't have any physical properties.</i>"<br /><br />If I am suggesting that the human mind is ultimately a non-physical entity, what do you gain, argument-wise, to point out that it would lack physical properties? Isn't that just restating a given?<br /><br />Here are my questions:<br /><br />What about "non-physical" or "transcendent" requires that a human mind be "outside" space-time? Why can't a human mind be ultimately non-physical despite correlation with the physical?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77549426792749364932012-09-22T07:47:04.570-07:002012-09-22T07:47:04.570-07:00@Cole
>This makes no sense.
This is largely ...@Cole<br /><br />>This makes no sense. <br /><br />This is largely because you haven't studied philosophical Theology or Aquinas.<br />When you study that it makes perfect sense & you wonder how on Earth you<br />believed before knowing it.<br /><br />>If your God is outside space-time and unchanging then He couldn't have become Christ and took on flesh. This requires change.<br /><br />Rather the immaterial human hypostasis would be replaced by the Divine Hypostasis of the Word. At best this would be a change <br />in Cambridge Properties but not a substansive change. But when we say God can't change we mean substansively He can't so your <br />example is not valid.<br /><br />>Moreover, He would have to have underwent another change as He exited space-time back into a timeless-spaceless existence with a physical body. <br /><br />There is no reason not to believe the Human nature of Christ dwells in Sempiternity with the Souls of the Blessed & when they get their bodies back at the resurrection they will all dwell together in Sempiternity. While the Divine Nature is by definition in Eternity & of Course is Eternity Itself by the doctrine of the Divine Simplicity.<br /><br />You can believe what you like Cole but I'm afraid my reason & knowledge won't let me agree with you.<br /><br />Peace.<br /><br />God be with you & I'm still pulling for you.<br /><br />Cheers.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33574277995517101732012-09-21T19:21:31.381-07:002012-09-21T19:21:31.381-07:00If all we mean by physical is that it has spatial ...<i>If all we mean by physical is that it has spatial properties, then shoot, I might qualify as a materialist. But Dennett would ride me out of his camp on a rail for blatant "skyhookery."</i><br /><br />Yeah, this is a real important point, and one the Thomists finally made me able to see. One thing I'll forever be grateful to TLS regarding is making me see that there are multiple conceptions of 'physical', and some concepts of physical are actually antithetical to the typical "naturalist".Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58051733274401992932012-09-21T18:58:25.985-07:002012-09-21T18:58:25.985-07:00Ben,
If your God is outside space-time and unchan...Ben,<br /><br />If your God is outside space-time and unchanging then He couldn't have become Christ and took on flesh. This requires change. Moreover, He would have to have underwent another change as He exited space-time back into a timeless-spaceless existence with a physical body. This makes no sense. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com