Brain and soul : seperate or the same?

Certainly given that most living things aren't what we would consider self aware. It doesn't have a general necessary function for life, but it may have a specific function for us and some other 'higher' animal groups.TTFN,WK

Very good. What specific function(s) would you suggest?lfen

I'd only be speculating if I suggested anything. Another possibility is that consciousness is only a byproduct of increased complexity in the brain associated with systems for other tasks such as audio and visual processing an the integrating of the two.One thing which has ben tentativley linked with conscioousness is the development of the ability to mentally model the behaviour of other entities in the outside world.TTFN,WK

I like the suggestion that consciousness is useful for mental modeling that seems like it might be a possibility.lfen

Here is an article about V.S. Ramachandran suggesting that the development of human language and culture is connected to 'mirror neurons' which are active both when a task is being performed and also when another is observed performing the task.I know that language and human culture are not neccesssary corollaries of consiousness but they are characteristic of human consciousness, which is the only one we really have any understanding of first-hand.TTFN,WK

Fascinating article, thanks for the link.
There is a lot to think over in that article I'll be mulling on it for awhile.lfen

My opinions: Yes, but not if they want to behave as humans. I find it astonishingly unlikely that so complicated a thing as consciousness is not adaptive. We have as yet, however, no clear data on what that purpose might be although (as mentioned by other posters above) several suggestions exist.

Yes it's very speculative at present. I think the only thing I look forward to in future developements is the increased knowledge we will have of the brain. The future otherwise doesn't hold that much interest to me as it seems like it will be a lot of computer graphics admidst an over populated and polluted world.lfen

Not sure if you're interested... and I wish I could reply to lfen as well.Here's a paper that's well-written and I think very accessible, which talks about "The problem of consciousness." (i.e. qualia). The author (David Chalmers) is very well respected.http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.htmlJust thought I'd follow up; I ran across this paper today, and I'm in the process of reading it now.Thanks!
Ben

lfen,I thought I'd reply directly to you, so I was sure you'd see the above link. Check the previous message for (what I think is) a great paper on qualia, a survey of methods for solving the problem, a survey of proposed solutions, and finally the author's own attempt to tackle the problem. I am very impressed.Ben

benecip Why would we assume something prior to the evidence for it?I can state that when a cloud goes by it is not water vapour made visible but to me it is a nest for dragons.Since my conscious experience is what I must deal with I will sticjk to the story despite your protestations otherwise.However in performing an investigation of the world our work must proceed on that which we can evidence not on what we can imagine. My point is that it is not a good question precisley because there is no reason or evidence to assume that such is the case.Philosophy often postulates intangibles without giving a basis for following such a line of reasoning. Really? What means do you have of showing its validity as a phenomena that can be studied?
What does it refer to? The evidence I speak of is the actual findings of science that do have a means of investigation.Nothing in all the studies done on the brain even hints at the possibilty of qualia.I must head off to work. Talk at you later.This message has been edited by sidelined, 12-10-2004 08:43 AM

---

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."-

I do agree with you. It is the same as myself saying that what you feel to be smooth is actually rough to me.It has no means of being subjected to experimentation unless those that assert such a position are at the same time willing to contend that there is no basis for the assertion being cosidered as valid if all measureabletests that we do to show the responses to stimuli of human beings under similar conditions yield the same results for those stimuli under those conditions.

It's the subject object dichotomy that interests and frustrates me. Yes but I am left with my consciousness and my experience. The world of science at this point stops short of explaining to me my experience of my life. It explains the behaviours I observe out there but it doesn't explain to me ME, the subject that is observing and thinking about all these things and having experiences of them.The way I understand qualia is that it is a way to point to the subjective experience I have, not the objective measurements science makes. There is often a correlation. Certain frequencies of light I will experience as red, but it's the experience of red, where the hell does that come from? Is it something inherent in the properties of photons? Is it something that has emerges with sufficient neural complexty? These are speculative question, a probing to find a path into the Subject and yet there would be no science if we weren't conscious subjects who asked questions about the world.It's not the qualia themselves but who experiences the qualia that really interests me.lfen

Ifen Ok let us see if this helps to clear it up.You have an impression of your body in space that is provided by your brain.If damage occurs{and sometimes even without brain dameage} then our impression can be altered{check out the website in the OP}.We therefore can make the case for the substance of the brain being necessary for the construction of the impression that constitutes our sensation of a body.
Now this all comes about because of a complex feedback system between the nerves throughout our body and the different departments of the brain.However,and this is crucial to the understanding of how your impression of mind arrives,the brain has no map of itself,within itself, in the same way it does the body.This gives the illusion of being seperate from the impression of our body.
We think of ourselves as floating free from the brain because the brain does not record itself.Does this make things clear as mud now?

---

A centipede was happy quite, until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?'
This raised his doubts to such a pitch
He fell distracted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

Ifen The experience of red is shown to also be physical in nature. Consider this, if you state that the experience of red is different from everybody else then when we do something to the phenomena {say place a colored filter between the light source and your eye then why would your experience also change so that you now see something different?

---

A centipede was happy quite, until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?'
This raised his doubts to such a pitch
He fell distracted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.