»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Is the brain the seat of the mind?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Is the brain the seat of the mind? |
|
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Sorry to be a bother again, but, I had the most interesting discussion with an evolutionist: he believed that the brain is the seat of the mind... I agree with him in some respects, however, is it possible that the soul too plays an important part? or is it just the influx of neurotransmitters that make uo the concious mind??? P.S : Love Me |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Donovan - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
very good question. and I love you. yes the brain is programmed for the thinking an d judgement and memory function. those neurons and other cells and many other. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Poetically speaking, it may be said to be the "seat" But literally the brain really is the brain of the mind. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If you've ever watched someone die, slowly, as thier brain is being affected by a pathogen -- and recognize that they are no longer the person that you knew -- I think you'd have the answer to that question. Considering the fact that I could 'hear' a woman's blouse and that it 'tasted' sort of like white chocolate when I looked at it -- you might expand the question to the entire central nervous system -- there are, after all, several brains and a system of sensory devices that make up 'ourselves'. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I think Kith might be asking whether the brain is all there is to our sentient existence ... not whether it plays a significant role in the here and now. I for one am not ready to say that my profoundest thoughts feelings and loves are due only to molecular configurations. If you look at it from a strictly human perspective, no one no one can know either positively or negatively. If you are willing to accept certain reports of history as true, and also divine testimony, and also respect the granted insight of the majority of our race (who have tenaciously believed in some kind of 'soul') then I think you might be able to get beyond the agnosticism, or the more faith-like claim of mechanics = you. Stephen. "The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” - G.K. Chesterton |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Isn't that to say there are spiritual mechanics too?  |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
after a bottle of Vodka, the brain it there. The mind is gone or confused... The disconnection from its control center. Soul's work on a cunfused mind would bring tragic event. Dream...the brain is there. The mind is there, only the mind is disconnected with all the tools. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What ya got against molecules Stephen? I happen to be made of them.  That which exists exists. I'm perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that 'self' or personality, and 'brain' are not necessarily equavalent, since some brains can harbor multiple personalities -- in the same way that we looked at an AI program that yields multiple personalities based on differences in the sums of learned databases -- which can all be stored on one computer. I'll even entertain that a brain may possibly be merely some sort of bio-chemical link to some source of intelligence that may lay outside of the space-time continuum that is within our realm of perception. Now. Proove it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Essorant, I have no problem with saying that, only that there has to be something more than mere mechanics to qualify it as spiritual. That's why any mechanics, even what is considered the most mundane, may be spiritual. I still have a concern that while some may be willing to identify "self" beyond the brain, it will be a lateral move only ... amounting to only more variations of mechanism without teleology. That's probably why AI can either convince someone that a machine may have a soul, or that he himself may not. Either way, the result is the same. Stephen. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
what is mind? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What is the reason for 'brain' and 'soul' to be divorced? How is it that mere molecules can affect the 'soul' of a person if the soul is an extrinsic entity? If I drink a bottle of Jack Daniels does my soul get drunk? Why does the non-natural soul need the natural habitat of the human species? Why can't it dwell equally in a two-by-four or a door-stop? And, if it can -- then why have the species at all? |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. I have a mind in that I can imagine God rolling his eyes . |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR: quote: More like married than divorced. And yet despite its oneness or harmony, marriage still requires functional separateness. And yes, we're talking figuratively, and all metaphors are limited, even if helpful. quote: What do you mean by extrinsic? Who ever said the soul was hermetically sealed or completely separate from our physical organism? Not I. Distinction and Union coexisting is not that difficult to imagine, especially seeing that there are instances of it all around us. Just think of the relationship between human body parts which affect each other, and yet maintain a kind of separation. Again, metaphors ... limited but helpful. quote: I'm not sure what you mean. I suspect you're just attempting a reductio ad absurdum. But if we have a soul and a brain, there's no need to assume that their nature is identical. The opposite error is to assume that they have no relationship at all. If you put gasoline in your car, do your wheels catch on fire? Separate, yet intimately related. quote: You are asking questions which involve teleology. Such conditions defy logical necessity by their "Is-ness". The relationship between a natural body, and a spiritual soul, is not one born out of need, but of design. And if you think about it, many things fall under this category. Why did my son think blue goes so well with yellow in his picture hanging on our fridge? Why is the sky blue? Why Why Why? Or you may think of it this way. Yes there is necessity, but it follows and is subservient to design. In the design itself is an element of pure arbitrariness that can't be escaped. (That much is true whether you believe in God, or atheistic evolution). G.K. Chesterton put it this way: "There are certain sequences or developments (cases of one word following another), which are, in the true sense of the word reasonable. They are, in the true sense of the word, necessary. Such are mathematical and merely logical sequences. We in fairyland (who are the most reasonable of all creatures) admit that reason and that necessity. For example, if the Ugly Sisters are older than Cinderella, it is (in an iron and awful sense) necessary that Cinderella is younger than the Ugly Sisters. there is no getting out of it. Haeckel may talk as much fatalism about the fact as he pleases: it really must be. If Jack is the son of a miller, a miller is the father of Jack. Cold reason decrees it from her awful throne: and we in fairy land submit. If the three brothers all ride horses, there are six animals and eighteen legs involved: that is true rationalism, and faryland is full of it. But as I put my head over the hedge of the elves and began to take notice of the natural world, I observed an extraordinary thing. I observed that learned men in spectacles were talking of the actual things that happened- dawn and death and so on, as if they were rational and inevitable." (From "The Ethics of Elfland", Orthodoxy) So, no there's no logical necessity of God conjoining a soul with a human body in creating someone who is more like himself than anything else in nature ... but there is a kind of artistic necessity involved in that he chose to do so. Only after that fact, does it become an ontological necessity. Stephen |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
again because you say... |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
No offence, but I find it a bit annoying when people respond like that, and rather contrary to philosophy and debate. Just like saying "it is just your opinion" " it is just your definition" etc. I think it is a "cop out" It doesn't argue anything about the rightness or wrongness, the virtue or vice, the truth or lie but just avoids adressing the point, by personalizing it to the other person saying or suggesting it as " only your.." "only what you..." meanwhile not being offered with any insight or argument for that point either. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Sorry, Please delete this if you can. It posted my post twice. |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi! Questions: 1. How is atheism related to Darwinism? 2. Was Darwin an atheist or a reporter? I thought he was a member of the Church of England.... 3. If you took "intelligent design" away from Darwin, what difference would it make? 4. Is "intelligent design" a Western notion, not debated elsewhere? |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Kitherion! Re: "is it just the influx of neurotransmitters that make up the concious mind???" Yes. PS: I really think you are a delight! Jim |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
oceanvu2 the questions two different thing. one is a faith in spirit. one is theory in nature. two different things! two different things! |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Drauntz! What is the difference between "faith in spirit and theory in nature." Faith and theory both seem to be a tad abstruse. Jim |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Why not post these in a separate thread? I think they would make for an interesting discussion. It is however quite a bit off topic (though not unrelated) from the present one. Just a suggestion. Stephen. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
yes, oceanvu2, why not a new topic? I agree with Stephanos. |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
Ocean... you should say that... (giggles coyly, and blushes.) So, then, since we've had the debate on biological processes, and we've had the debate on conciousness, then: what about the brain controlling the mind, but, the mind being (if you'll excuse the pun ) a separate entity?Love me "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Kitherion.. "what about the brain controlling the mind" You see, the brain is the physical part of the car, the mind is the function of the car. Then here is the question for you, who is the driver? as soon as a neuron forms, it starts automatic spiking...voltage forming and then discharge. out of control of ourselves. mind, if we have one. are we have the same thing? or different? if there are the same, then what it the sameness...if they are different then how we group them( based on what, poetic or non-poetic? romantic or non-romantic? there are many ...probably based on the wiring....the wring of power line. i lost my mind...need transmission oil or oil change. Can we format our memory? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Am I not entitled to my opinion Ess? Everybody gets one but me? Stephen is perfectly entitled to his opinions. But without observable, testable, reproducable evidence -- it's only as good as anybody else's opinion -- therefore, merely because he says so. He can appeal to antiquity -- but there is historically as much support for the position that the moon is made of green cheese. If he wants to say that 'soul' is to brain as hand is to foot -- then he's making a pretty strong argument that when you die your soul dies too. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR, Of course you can have your own opinion. I think it was your particular negative yet non-explanative reply that Essorant was referring to. We already know that we don't agree.quote: A philosophical question about soul cannot be discussed in historical categories ... history being a different field altogether. And yet I believe the most reliable histories support it and do not deny it. Reading someone like N.T. Wright and others might at least remind you that a history which emphatically insists upon a soul, and eternal life, is not to be ridiculed along with Mother Goose. Of course I feel a comparable disbelief about the historical revisionists you perhaps tend to trust, only I wouldn't likewise ridicule, since I think lies are typically strong and convincing, as to counteract the truth which is stronger. But again, it's no one area of study that by iteself confirms God and soul to me, but the collective power of many areas, history, philosophy, psychology, experience ... to name a few. quote: So if someone is as mad as fire, then that means pouring water on their head will appease them? Analogy. Non-physical (or trans-physical) realities must always be spoken of in this manner. And if you want to say you don't know what I mean; When's the last time you heard someone say their heart was broken? We instantly understand the truths behind such sayings, and yet never insist upon exact correspondence. So, no. My limited but helpful analogy is no argument for the mortality of soul, anymore than saying someone has a broken heart implies a myocardial infarction. Stephen |
||
|
oceanvu2 Senior Member
since 2007-02-24
Posts 1066Santa Monica, California, USA |
Hi Rebel! re: "Am I not entitled to my opinion Ess? Everybody gets one but me?" Don't feel bad. Apparently, Grim isn't entitled either. Best, Jim |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Jim, haven't seen Grim's opinion expressed here, nor his right to do so denied elswhere. Stephen; For all your trouble -- you still haven't established any more evidence, or even a cogent syllogism(that logical device used in philosophy Ess), in support of 'soul' than the flying spaghetti monster. On the other hand, the scientific evidence is rather strong in support of the brain being the seat of the mind. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR : quote: Apart from formal syllogisms, my own statements and yours are full of syllogisms. So I don't understand what you mean by this. Probably what you really mean is that you don't agree with my premises, and therefore my conclusions are false. But of course I would say the same about what you're saying. However I won't accuse you of being non-philosophical in your discussions, or of being illogical. Logical doesn't necessarily mean true or right, as any detective will tell you. quote: Wipe that Sauce off of your wings will ya? Really to me, a being who is no more than a complex expression of physicality (ego and consciousness being just another quantitative variation), destined to return to the subpersonal from which it came, which is assumed to possess any real insight into the nature of self or reality as a whole, smells of Ragu more than anything I've described. I really think that talking ourselves into believing we have no soul, is one way to lose it. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
LR, I just had to add that with all this talk of spaghetti and green cheese, you're making me hungry. Although I prefer Parmesan. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, however imaginitive, still exists. Just like a warped mirror's warped reflection (warped on purpose or not) of an object or objects that may look much different from the reflection. The mirror, the reflection, and the objects all exist, but perhaps sometimes the distinction between objects and reflections becomes confused, ignored, or forgotten over time. Even after the object is no longer in front of the "mirror", we can still retain the reflection of something/things in an artistic shape or represention, and therein the shape will be warped as much as as the mirror warped it. And, to help try to confuse us even more the artistic representation can then be an object too, whence more reflections and artistic shapes may be inspired and deviate from the original object. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: But that sense of "existence" (imaginitive fiction) is not what we are speaking of. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I also meant representation in general, Stephanos. For example, the representation or portrayal of God in the bible, even with a manner of imaginitiveness as well, may be "fiction" but it also has truth. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Perhaps, but that degree of "truth" is not guaranteed in all instances of imagination. In what sense does the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" convey truth or reality? What Reb meant is, that the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not exist as a real personage. I understood exactly what he meant. If I were to accept only your lowest definition of reality, as it applies to the soul or even to God, it would be a lesser form of reality than the one I am describing. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Alright, pretend you are at the carnival and there is a scientifically designed mirror that reflects your face in such a way that it looks like spaghetti with eyes hovering in the mirror. You laugh and leave without imagining it will go any further. But the mirror also recorded that. A few months later a picture of you as you showed up in the mirror is published as the "flying spaghetti monster"! but you don't come across that picture for five years, so when you do you don't remember that is scientifically altered reflection of yourself, nor remember going to the carnival. Still say the "flying spaghetti monster" doesn't reflect a true personage? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I didn't say that. I said I'm totally open to the possibility. quote: What I really mean is not that the Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist -- but that you haven't made your case -- or that your case is currently at least as provable (or not) as that in favor of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. quote: Your premise Stephen, is an appeal to antiquity -- quote: If I accept what you say is true then I will believe it is true -- is not a syllogism at all -- but merely circular reasoning -- and -- tatamount to saying 'because I say so (because they said so)'. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Local Rebel, I am not sure what claim about the soul you are questioning. Nor what kind of proof you are expecting. Can you explain the context of your doubts/questions a bit clearlier? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
By the way, I think what one says is (part of the) evidence as well. If it weren't, why would anyone need to testify at court? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: What you say can indeed be used as evidence but not simply anything you say, for instance if I saw someone stealing a purse my testimony could be used as evidence. However if I simply believed that the person had stolen a purse my testimony would be inadmissible. Saying that you believe the spaghetti monster exists is not evidence that it does exist in the same way that saying you believe that the soul exists is not evidence. So does either exist? Courts or more specifically juries are governed by a rule called reasonable doubt, any judgement they reach does not need to be the truth but as close a approximation as possible - or beyond reasonable doubt based upon the body of evidence. This rule of reasonable doubt isn't restricted to the courtroom, people weigh evidence about almost everything and come to conclusions that are as close an approximation to the truth (or beyond a reasonable doubt) as they can all the time. LR believes that the evidence in both cases allows room to doubt that either the soul or the spaghetti monster exists but is open to any evidence to the contrary and I tend to agree with his position. Is the brain the seat of the mind? Given the evidence I'd say it was beyond a reasonable doubt |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Let us address what we both at least acknowledge: the word. And some equivelants in other languages. Soul Animus Psyche The evidence of the word itself only betokens existence. We already have the word nothing for "nothing", why would we use the word soul to refer to "nothing" too, and a word that involves much sentimental importance to people? Why would many people find much importance in this word, if it actually just referred to "something" that doesn't exist? They wouldn't. The word beyond a reasonable doubt refers to something that exists. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: As a matter of fact, I do. Let me explain. With your scenario, it is the degree that the image doesn't reflect me, that it is the Italian ghoul. Remember that you said it was a "scientifically designed" mirror. That means that the characteristics of the reflection are artificial, to the extreme point of losing my identity entirely. The monster still doesn't exist beyond someone's fancy. Or if you want to say that the FSM exists only in the sense that all of its separate components exist ... like pasta, and tomatoes, and monstrous animals or people, then I'll agree with you. But again that is a different kind of "reality" than what I have been speaking of. LR: quote: In the same way as you are open to an airborne Pasta dish with eyes? You did seem to say that, in not so many words. quote: Don't play coy. I know an attempt at reductio ad absurdum when I see it. Of course you are implying that this chimera doesn't exist. Tacking on a concession about the impossibility of proving an impossibility doesn't change that. quote: As is, I suppose, any appeal to history, experience, testimony, or reportage of any kind. quote: Reb, you gotta trust something, someone, sometime. I'm certainly not suggesting that you take something totally on someone else's authoriity. But I didn't present only the testimony of others as a clue, but other clues as well. You have merely taken one statement out of the whole. I've never been one to blindly accept authority without a thought process. But everyone, including you, has presuppositions. And anyone may point out the circular nature inherent in them. Some circles are better than others. Chesterton once said that a bullet is quite round as the world, but it isn't the world. Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Fairys, leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, boogey-men, werewolfs, vampires, Martians, Athena, Zeus, Hades, Excalibur, Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all words that represent 'something'. Some words represent real things, some words represent Fictional things. But I'll give you credit Ess for approaching a syllogism in your last post -- although you commit an all-too common error: quote: |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
To all, I am about to go to the other side of the world (literally) to adopt another living soul into our family. So I may not have time or opportunity to continue this discussion until some weeks later. Though I may try, if I get a chance. I am without a laptop. And I don't know whether or not internet cafe's will be readily available where I'm going. God bless you all, your friend, Stephen. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sorry Stephen --Until I can get a neurologist to fix my brain I'm only good for about 15 minutes in front of the computer any more -- I'll have to get back to you later. Ah well -- we posted simultaneously -- Bonvoyage -- and best of luck friend.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Congragulations Stephanos. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But if it were a "flying spaghetti monster" mask instead, it wouldn't "reflect" you in that sense either. Would you suggest that it were no longer Stephanos because the mask looks like a "Flying Spaghetti Monster"?
All I am saying is that as imaginary it exists just as much as something that is not imaginary. The distinction is the presence of imaginary aspects instead of the absence of existance. That is an important distinction. Local Rebel,
That's all I was trying to say. They refer to something and something is existant.
I would change that to: "Some words refer to plain nature, some words refer to nature enhanced with art" |
||
|
Kitherion Member
since 2006-08-01
Posts 181Johannesburg |
The flying spagetti monster... ... ... the only way to approach that, is to deny it's non-existance by asking whether or not you are able to disprove it... Jedi Knoghts anyone... (The force is strong in me... ... ...) Love Me. "Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..." |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
