It seems to me that you're basically conclusing that mind (or consciousness) is a function of matter -- matter that has attained a certain degree of organization.
That wouldn't be my preferred choice of words, but I basically agree with that.
If so, some neurosurgurians in the field has concluded otherwise.
I would look to
neuroscientists, rather than neurosurgeons.
For example, Wilder Penfield actually changed his mind on this very topic based on his own investigations into neurological connections. Penfield is actually considerd the father of modern neurosurgury -- and he, like you, actually started off with the idea that consciousness somehow emanated from the neural activities of the brain.
My own view is that you cannot confine consciousness to be due to the brain. I believe it takes a whole person, and a brain by itself (say a brain in a vat) is not sufficient.
Lee Edward Travis writes:
Penfield would stimulate electrically the proper motor cortx of conscious patients and challenge them to keep one hand from moving when current was applied. The patient would seize his hand with the other hand and struggle to hold it still. Thus one hand under the control of the eletrical current and the other hand under the control of the patient's mind fought against each other.
There is positive evidence that consciousness and the self are not merely a physical process of the brain. We have experimental data where people's brains are electrically stimulatd in order to cause them to move their arms or legs, turn their heads or eyes, talk or swallow. And invariably the patient (each one) would respond by saying something like, "I didn't do that. You did."
I'm not sure what conclusions you are drawing from that. The brain is complex, and the way behavior is generated and controlled is complex. I don't see this as giving any evidence against materialism.
In other words, the patient clearly thinks of himself as having an existence separate from his body. In fact, no matter how far Penfield probed the cerebral cortex, there was no place that he could find where an eletrical stimulation of the brain would cause a patient to "believe" or "decide".
I think the general view is that belief is not a matter of electrical signal, but has to do with the structural organization of the brain. Electrical stimulation could not easily create beliefs. Changes in neural structure would be needed for that.
Decision might be electrical, but it won't be the kind of simple electrical signal that can be generated by probes.
Another study showed a delay between the time an eletric shock was applied to the skin, its reaching the cerebral cortx, and the self conscious perception of it by the person. This too suggests that "the self" is more than just a machine that simply "reacts" to stimuli as it receives them.
Some people have jumped to conclusions as a result of studies of timing differences. But I think those conclusions are premature.
Think about dreaming itself.
How exactly do researchers know that there are a certain eye movements when people are dreaming?
They observe and measure that movement.
You can see eye movement, even when the eye is closed. In sleep labs, they can use instrumentation to measure more precisely.
Researchers can certainly know about the brain by studying it, but they can't know about the mind without asking the person to reveal it.
This is true. Many scientists believe that "mind" is a poor concept to use in scientific discussion. It's a folk theory construct. There are many folk theory constructs that scientists find to be poor concepts. For example, physicists will tell you that "centrifugal force" is a poor term and doesn't actually refer to any real force.
The details of the neurophysiology of the brain can easilly be viewed as merely footprints (in a physical medium) of non-physical, non-genetic supersensible realities connected to the activity of human consciousness. In fact, it seems as though the evidence currently points towards the view that consciousness exists independently of the brain.
That's roughly the view of Cartesian dualism. It's a philosophical position. I don't know of any credible neuro-scientist who believes it.
™ Version 4.2
