Mind from Matter

Identity seems to be equated with uniqueness? A collection that is not identical to other collections of say physical characteristics, genetic and historically developed behaviours, or simply that two organisms at any time occupy different spaces?The you that is aware of your identity. The you that is aware your body has a heigth, or that you like tea not coffee, etc, are the characteristics of your organism it's characteristics? We identify the subject with the objective self, but this identity has been denied by the Buddha, Ramana, in short Buddhists and Advaita's say that the you that is aware of the organism is not identical to the organism. Or put another way that is all it is so then there is no entity only a grammatical convention to refer to the process of an organism.lfen

southerngurlThen you do not have an identity that is more than your brain do you?

quote:

---

he you that is aware of your identity. The you that is aware your body has a heigth, or that you like tea not coffee, etc, are the characteristics of your organism it's characteristics?

---

Pretty much. Not exclusively.Some degree os uniqueness are "merely" physical and biological, like having eyes of different colour. This would be part of your perceived self-identity whether it arises from simple observational or arcane psychology.

quote:

---

We identify the subject with the objective self, but this identity has been denied by the Buddha, Ramana, in short Buddhists and Advaita's say that the you that is aware of the organism is not identical to the organism.

---

Well they were wrong. Many facts have been denied by people that lived in pre-scientific societies. These days we have better data.

RR,I've thought a bit about what you've said, and tried to really break it down. (side commentary I think you generally have good thoughts, but I wonder if you really investigate them, or if you're just doing that now. In my reading of your thoughts, you often lack the historical structure of the topic, and this lack of a "cultural literacy" makes it hard to communicate. Most of my time was spent translating your thoughts into such a "common framework." (/side commentary)Here's the deal. If I can convince you that I can change your conscious experience by doing "something" to your cereberal cortex (or for that matter any part of your central nervous system), would you be convinced that this experience arises from the brain? This, to me, would be empirical evidence. It would be lacking a complete theoretical framework, but we generally accept what the empirical evidence "says," and we wait for (or, depending on your interest, actively pursue) a theoretical framework.There's TONS of this evidence out there. I can point you to it, if it will make a difference. If it's not what you're looking for, please let me know why not, and I can think about some other approach to the problem.BenP.S. Thank you for your patience and your continued interest in the topic. Keep up the good work.

I don't need any convincing of that, Ben. I am not suggesting that the mind is not dependent on the brain. What I am suggesting is--uncertainly--that the mind is not the brain. That's all I'm suggesting.A nerve impulse is not a thought. True, without that nerve impulse there would be no thought. A light bulb is not light. Now, if we do something to the light bulb there will be no light. But that is not the point.What I want to know is how physicality can produce mentality.Actually, it's a mystery, and I am asking a little too much from you, but I want to know.Don't patronize me, Ben.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-17-2004 09:54 PM

RR,First, I'll apologize. I didn't mean to patronize you, although I had a feeling it might come out like that. I was just trying explain why I'm having trouble understanding, and why I might ask clarifications that you think are pointless. I'm basically operating with a different vocabulary than you. I wasn't trying to be judgemental, just to state a fact that might facilitate communication.Anyway.I am starting to understand your position better. I don't like using the word "is"; I would rather say "our model of the brain does not fully describe our model of the mind."I think there's two pieces to that:

1. Yeah, the current theory doesn't. That's for sure
2. In principle, if we really believe that the brain causes the mind, it will need to. This was explored by philosopher J. Kim at Brown University. In analyzing the notion of "emergence", he concluded that, if one "lower" system causes another, then the "higher" system cannot have "emergent properties" that cannot be explained by the former.

To me it all comes down to modelling. Our model of the physical world does not explain one very salient fact--that we have some mental experience. It explains things that correlate GREAT with this mental experience, but not the actual mental experience itself.To say that there's a "mental world" ... to me seems to say that there's some "mental space" that we "tap into." Are you saying this, or are you saying that this "mental world" is simply a "world" created by the brain?Ben

I don't know. I think that mentality (or consciousness) is a mystery about which science can say little, since it is a private experience. When scientists talk about consciousness they don't really talk about consciousness. They talk about neurology or behavior. But here's what's unique about this "private experience." Everybody experiences it, unlike other private experiences. We all know what we are referring to when we say, for example, "it was a picture in my mind."Incidentally, this was what convinced Augustine of the existence of God. He couldn't imagine anything being incorporeal, until one day he realized that his memories were incorporeal. He had been walking around all his life with incorporeality and never realized it. He goes on and on in his Autobiography about the incredible nature of mental pictures.The question is, what are these images? They are imaginary but do they in some sense "exist"?So please explain to me so I will know (ha!).Sorry if I was snappy.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-18-2004 03:56 PM

Ben,That is so well put! I think you've finally said what I've been trying to find words for. Speaking for myself to your question, I do think that humans have created a "world" of sorts that is in some sense mental but I'm not sure it is simply or purely mental. I'm thinking of our culture, memes, myths, etc. It's more like a world of information? If I'm using the word information correctly.lfenp.s. I'm still looking but haven't yet found Damasio's citation on the research about the lag between motor impulse and conscious awareness of it.
lfen

I think these images are created by brain activity. That activity exists but it's dynamic. Images in the real world change also. Sometimes they change slowly as say a painting ages, or rapidly as say when an artists in creating them. In our brains they can change very rapidly as in dreaming day or night.IIRC Plato was interested in your question and thought there was world of archtypes or something that held images. Been too many decades since I read Plato so it's all fuzzy. Which is an example of the dynamic functioning of memory, in my case how it can decay or evaporate over time.I don't think it's that big a jump from the sensory system "seeing" via stimulation by photon to the brain "seeing" using stored memory and it's other processing. Ben may know something that makes this a bigger jump, but I don't find it inexplicable. It's self aware mental experience that I find so fundamentally inpenetrable.lfen

Well, I have had two pathological experiences that enable me to continue to be pointing out that Ben's experience if the world was a thing in itself & Gould is correct that cross level effects are things but not/never potentials THEN I dont think this is enough said.I cannot say to have synthesized my pathological "brain" activity but it seems to me that what is great is only that we have been able to keep war to such a lowe level. I have experienced temporary loss of short term memory and a degenerage joint in my back that causes me to miss sense haptically, REGARDLESS my 'experience' of the world has not changed as I aged, I only notice that I need rely on more structured behaviors to accomplish what I ALREADY have potentially done. So I might argee with you in this sense that a "world" does not exist nontheless I still have the ability to attempt analses that I have not already made a thing of the world even if we were to find "consicousness" variable across our SPECIES.I dont know if this means anything to you. I will try to explain if it really necessary.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-19-2004 08:12 PM

Brad,What are your favorite foods? What do you do for fun or relaxation? Have you favorite music? I listen to a lot of Bob Dylan, but also Bach, and Jazz, and have a weakness for most kinds of chips, as well as pastries.lfen

I'll go for Bach. I was trying to get a sense of what Newton might have heard.

Brad,Bach is sublime.Do you drink coffee or tea? What is your favorite beverage in the morning, or say to sit somewhere and chat? A beer, wine?lfen

bencip19 What is this actual mental experience that is not explained by the model of the brain if the mental is dependent upon the physical for its existence? Are we not implicating a seperate existence for the mental where none actually exists?If our brain gives the illusion of a seperate mental state from the brain our model of the brain does explain this.The brain has no nervous feedback of itself so the activity of the brain constitutes a mental state because we cannot sense it the way we can our bodies.Electrical impulses are shown to arise in the brain due to activity of the brain matter.The activity of these impulses are what constitutes the mental state.

---

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.

Ben,I'm thinking of this as the inside/outside problem. We all experience our brains from the INSIDE, this is the mental experience. But science studies the brain from the OUTSIDE the neuro science view of matter, energy, neurons, molecules, ions, brain chemistry, interaction, and organization.Many correlations have been found between inside and outside. Yet I still can't see how chemistry ends up being the world I experience.I am skeptical of the dualist position. I think the position that there is no problem over looks a lot.I think of a third possiblity and that is mentality is a property of the universe that we have not thus far accounted for. This is a wild analogy but magnetism was known before electricity. Yes there was lighting and static electricity but there was no known connection. It wasn't until comparitively recently that electromagnetism was understood. So is there a possibility that matter/energy has a property of mentality, or interiority that we just haven't uncovered? This I know is wild speculation but I'm just wondering if that is possible, because I'm not seeing how mentality can be emergent.Wetness of water is an observant emergent property. How do we detect the emergence of mind, or awareness in a scientific way? I don't know how to quantify it and describe as an emergent property. It seems unique to me in a way that life processes aren't. That is we can observe other living things, but how do we observe other interiors? I interact with you and I model you as an aware being but that is based on my experience of my awareness.lfen