Re: Famous quotes.

Ken Shackleton wrote:
On May 27, 1:31 pm, Nashton <n...@xxxxx> wrote:
Ken Shackleton wrote:
On May 26, 7:04 pm, Nashton <n...@xxxxx> wrote:
Ken Shackleton wrote:
On May 25, 9:18 pm, Nashton <n...@xxxxx> wrote:
Ken Shackleton wrote:
On May 25, 3:39 pm, Nashton <n...@xxxxx> wrote:
The principle of life, it may turn out, is no more than a useful
human convention. But what of the Mind? Mind knows itself and knows the
world: chemistry and physics, explaining so much, cannot undertake to
explain Mind itself. It can intensify knowledge of Nature but it cannot
be shown that Mind has hitherto directed the operations of Nature. In
that sense Mind and Nature are different.
Charles Scott Sherrington
It seems to me that the best science to date indicates quite strongly
that the mind is an emergent properly of a functioning brain.
I'd be interested in reading your sources.
Start working your way through these:
http://www.neurology.org/papbyrecent.shtml
Being glib again, are we?
Perhaps...but the point is that it takes a lot of reading in a
particular field in order to get a broad appreciation for what the
consensus view is of the practitioners in that field.
As far as the
mind goes, I have read nothing with any scientific weight that
indicates that the mind is anything other than an emergent property of
a functioning brain. Altering brain function alters the mind, there is
nothing independent about the mind...the mind depends on the
brain....your physical brain, functioning properly, for its very
existence.
Here's an excellent write up on consciousness and a very recent synopsis
of up to date information with a quantum theory spin, to boot, given
that QT is "the most fundamental theory of matter."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

It is not at all true that any evidence points to consciousness with the
aid of epiphenomena such as increasingly complex neuronal circuits, at
least not in a reductionist manner. Where is the grandmother cell and
does it even exist? Is it merely a matter of time before it's discovered
or does consciousness defy reductionist methods of investigation?

Why does consciousness need to be reductionist?

I was referring to the method of investigation of the nature of mind, not to be confused with the mind needing to be reductionist.
This is not, by any stretch, a simple subject.


It seems to be true
that the level of an organism's consciousness is directly proportional
to the complexity of its brain [and it's relationship of size to body
mass]. I have no idea what you mean by a "grandmother cell".

It's the "Gnostic neuron." Very well known in neuro cycles, especially as it pertains to vision.
It's the cell where all the complexities converge, in order for an individual to recognize the face of his/her grandmother.

Perhaps it's a poor analogy, but an economy is an emergent properly of
large groups of individuals who trade labour for goods.

Is there a strong correlation between matter (body/brain) and mind? Sure
there is. Is there a causal relationship between body and
mind/consciousness? According to the cited article, even if there was
direct evidence that increasing complexity of the nervous system, and
matter in general, of which the neurological system is its most
organized structure, it opens the door to both monistic and dualistic
interpretations of consciousness. Therefore, the interpretation that
you're presenting and your assertion that mind is nothing but the
manifestation of the complexity of the brain is overly simplistic.

Perhaps it is overly simplistic, but I doubt that it's wrong. There is
no evidence to suggest that the mind exists in the absence of a
functioning brain.

This is a very profound and difficult subject to master, even for people well versed in the neurological sciences. When you add QM to the mix, psychosomatics, Heisenberg and collapsing of waves between observer and observed object, it's a question that has baffled and probably will forever baffle science.





.

Relevant Pages

  • The never ending debate ...
    ... An illusion is a persistent difference between ... These are things the brain does. ... is involved in what we might call a Mind Activity. ... concept of consciousness. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: The Identity Theory of Mind
    ... We can speak of experiencing the mind like holding ... >> which one we use if we would want to understand consciousness in ... > it merely sufficient complexity, a maze of interrelations, constant ... > organism can affect individuals below it. ...
    (sci.cognitive)
  • Re: A request for information please.
    ... that the mind is the brain, so what I believe you are really asking ... you can never go back to believing that the mind is anything other than ... then the idea of consciousness as ... Behaviorism and Physicalism cover 1) and 2). ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Qualia Question
    ... By removing the gap between mind and brain - in all the words that are ... Just because I can't explain some aspect of the universe doesn't mean the ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Origin of consciousness
    ... reacting to changes in the field organize as a cosmic consciousness? ... my brain get transferred, and how does the new media store it? ... If the ZPF exists, then every molecular change is influencing the ZPF ... Do you have any model in mind, or are you just using words which make ...
    (talk.origins)