The brain gives rise to the mind.

I’ve just been thinking about this for some time, and I’ve decided that I think that the brain gives rise to the mind. I think that materialism is the way to go. If we knew every relation of every possible neural state, then at the very least w/ a type/type identity theory we could explain human experience in physical terms without having to leave anything important unaccounted for. I know I’m assuming that neuroscientists will discover all sorts of amazing things, but that’s what they’ve been doing for some time. I think it’s only a matter of time before human experience can be explained in purely physical terms, (maybe even private mental states).

Any thoughts on this?

Feel free to take this conversation in any direction as long as it relates to the topic at least a little.

lobotomists would agree with you…

mapping the synapses of the brain will be as elusive as mapping the entire DNA molecule…

-Imp

Elusive or impossible?

elusive… eventually we will build a machine that we will believe will do the trick, place our faith in our creation and destroy ourselves…

but have a good day today! :slight_smile:

-Imp

Maybe that’s what god did.

I know there are philosophical issues with this whole idea, but sometimes I like to start with the assumption that it’s true and see how far I can go with it. Since it can’t really be verified just yet, doing this sort of gives me a feel of the general truthiness of the matter.

Stephen Colbert owns the rights. I think Smears ows Dr. C some money.

I’ll just get the tshirt and give him some free advertising.

I guess I agree with you on time generating endless possibilities. But I think we can figure out what all is statistically probably within an average lifespan because all lifespans are finite. What does this do to my materialist point of view with regard to time?

I think neurology is a load of crap, and these neurologists feed you the crap and your regurgitate it. Forgive me, my neurons just misfired. The mind is eternal, and not subjected to anything made or composed of material.

Then I suppose the problem is more with speculation than materialism per se?

What causes you to believe this? neurologists have done alot of work you know. What is it that you doubt their ability to explain? Do you think that the mind has a property that doesn’t manifest physically?

Which part of the physical brain is responsible for being self-aware? Taking the materialist viewpoint we would conclude that human and animal brains are made of the same ‘stuff’ (neurons, synapses, etc.). This is perfectly reasonable and as far as we can tell they are.

Now, how many neurons do you have to have before you become self-aware? Is is a gradual thing? Are dogs more self-aware than mice? Children have less neurons than adults. When do they become self-aware? Can they be considered as a person before they do?

I think that a study of the physical brain can tell you a lot of useful things. From what I have seen in the field they are not making much progress towards understanding the origin of ‘ego’ despite many decades of effort and more sensitive measurements. This suggests two options:

  1. The ‘ego’ is a property of the whole physical brain (+ nervous system? +body?) and by looking at it in smaller and smaller pieces you will never find it. (See complexity theory)

  2. The ‘ego’ is not a property of the physical brain at all and comes from somewhere else (insert belief system or philosophy here)

I am unsure which of these is more likely but it is fun trying to find out!

Okay, in the same way a metorologist predicts the weather, he also dreams of a day when the weather can be controlled by human intervention. Neurologists hope to map the brain in the same way, so that behavior becomes predictable, if not controlled. I believe they have a chance at “succeeding” if you want to call that success. Like all technologies, the initial “progress” is a part of the medical savior model. We can help help help you. Many of these people who take medicines prescribed by neurologists have never seen the rats that have computer chips stuck in their heads and the way different frequencies control their path to the cheese.

what causes my belief that the mind is seperate from brain matter, is a hope for eternal freedom. You can call this irrational, but faith IS irrational. I can offer you no proof. All I can say is that I want to believe this about the mind because I find it benificial to do so. Otherwise, I’ll bang my head against the wall, because some scientist knows the right button to push. Not much hope in that.

(copyright) Kevin Connolly, I may use this passage in a book of fiction. Because I believe it that strongly.

But next to you there could be a man who can’t recall his name, and another who hit’s his head at the wall due to illness. These scientists may offer aid.

The problem of a frankenstien argument here is that of access. The morality of society will allow for the ill person’s mind to lend toward involuntary acesss, and not the other way around.

Now, to be sure this gets very, very, very tricky as were talking about ‘persons’ and the rights of persons.

Much more dangerous would be the development of access in which consent need not be granted.

In any case, the tie that will bind will be the ethical constructs which govern technology.

For example the technology exists today to obliterate us all to dust, and/or enslave us for the sake of specfic purpose.

Yet, that hasn’t occured. To the deep philosopher there may be an important reason as to why…

I have no idea how mental experiences, as defined purely on qualativity (my word :slight_smile: ), can be explained in terms of physicality.

Yet