Is the Mind Physical?: Dissecting Conscious Brain Tissue

[Obvious Leo]

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I say mind is what a brain (of particular and peculiar complexity, embedded in a body, embedded in an enviroment) 'does' (in the same way that legs 'do' walking).

There's no profit in trying to examine walking (as event) apart from that which 'does' walking, that which walks. In the exact same way, there's no profit in examining mind apart from that which 'does' mind, that which thinks.

All the jargon in the world (physicalism, etc.) contributes not one thing to the conversation, which - properly - ought to be about how mind (self, 'I') arises or extends out, is maintained, remains coherent.

Plainly: there is no in-dwelling spirit, no dual-aspected substance, no ethereal conduit...there's just 'you', a finite, discrete, complex, on-going, recursive, organic, event...that's it...that's all.

Ain't that enough? Aren't 'you', as a dynamic ordering of chemicals and electricity, miraculous enough? Do we really need to be ensouled to be spectacular?

And: no, I didn't read the friggin' article either.

Good post, henry, delivered in your unique and succinct style. In the official jargon of cognitive neuroscience mind is simply an EMERGENT property of physical processes and there's nothing in the least bit supernatural or mysterious about it.

[henry quirk]

Wholly natural: agreed.

But, till the brainiacs figure out 'how' brain does mind, also wholly mysterious (in a general, non-scientific, unjargoned, way, of course).

[Hobbes' Choice]

Mental processes are exclusively physical because they involve energy exchange between particles of matter. In fact large and complex minds, such as those which evolved in homo sapiens, are very expensive things to run in terms of their energy requirements.

That's why they stop working when we're dead.

Did you se the article? It seems to be suggesting that because only parts of the brain, or parts at a particular time can experience things, it requires something outside of physicalism.

I don't subscribe to the magazine, although I occasionally buy a copy at my local newsagent, so I haven't read the article. Is it any different from the usual dualist line of shit which is ordinarily peddled by navel-gazers with no grounding in basic science? If it isn't I already have quite a backlog of more interesting papers awaiting my attention in due course.

I have to say I started to flag a bit, as it applied Zeno (not explicitly) as some sort of way of trying to unsettle the physicalist position. I'd not seen that before, but it's no more convincing for that.
As you see from the quote. The dualist of the mind and brain are assumed, and the mind is assumed to be a series of "events" which leads the writer to question physicalism in the same way that Zeno's paradox is an artifacts of "Units" the units here are "mental events", which are then distinct from the "mind".

[Hobbes' Choice]

Wholly natural: agreed.

But, till the brainiacs figure out 'how' brain does mind, also wholly mysterious (in a general, non-scientific, unjargoned, way, of course).

All "how's" are ultimately mysterious, even the most simple. How is it that all matter is attractive to all other matter and leads to what we call gravity? We can only really describe. There are not explanations here.
It seems that in the presence of complex grey matter the consequence seems to lead to consciousness of some kind and degree.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Mental processes are exclusively physical because they involve energy exchange between particles of matter. In fact large and complex minds, such as those which evolved in homo sapiens, are very expensive things to run in terms of their energy requirements.

That's why they stop working when we're dead.

Did you se the article? It seems to be suggesting that because only parts of the brain, or parts at a particular time can experience things, it requires something outside of physicalism.

Well, it's wrong.

Well, I have to say that I am impressed, once again, with your ability to created and sustain an argument. I find myself at a complete lost to find words to build a counter argument.

[Obvious Leo]

Wholly natural: agreed.

But, till the brainiacs figure out 'how' brain does mind, also wholly mysterious (in a general, non-scientific, unjargoned, way, of course).

Neuroscience is still a science in its infancy. The human mind is an entity of such staggering complexity that the study of it will keep the geeks occupied until the end of time. Only now are we beginning to develop the technology and computing power which will enable us to conduct such research in a meaningful way and the next couple of centuries should bring some rapid advances. However to deny the physicality of mental processes is to equate the unknown with the unknowable and such a "science of the gaps" must always be anathema to philosophy.

[Dalek Prime]

Well, I have to say that I am impressed, once again, with your ability to created and sustain an argument. I find myself at a complete lost to find words to build a counter argument.

If the mind isn't the process created by the physical brain, and thus defined and dependant on it, what is it then? Some bullshit 'soul'? A ghost? I'm waiting.

[Obvious Leo]

the mind is assumed to be a series of "events" which leads the writer to question physicalism in the same way that Zeno's paradox is an artifacts of "Units"

Sounds like old-school reductionism to me. Something which the biologists grew out of a century ago.

[Dalek Prime]

Brain stops, mind stops. Full stop.

[Obvious Leo]

Brain stops, mind stops. Full stop.

You're a man after my own heart, Dalek. Nothing beats the bloody obvious when it comes to getting to the point of a question. Rotting cadavers are not widely renowned for their remarkable mental powers.

[Dalek Prime]

Brain stops, mind stops. Full stop.

You're a man after my own heart, Dalek. Nothing beats the bloody obvious when it comes to getting to the point of a question. Rotting cadavers are not widely renowned for their remarkable mental powers.

I learnt that from you, Leo. Or at least you reminded me, that the simple solution is probably the closest to the truth. Now, I keep it simple.

[Obvious Leo]

the simple solution is probably the closest to the truth.

Nearly always, mate. The only time when this may not be the case is when we have incomplete information about the nature of the question, in which case we tend to fill in the gaps with our own bullshit. Theists are the folk who set the benchmark for this practice.

"simplex sigillum veri"...the simple is the seal of the true.

When in doubt, assume that reality is exactly what it appears to be.

[Dalek Prime]

the simple solution is probably the closest to the truth.

Nearly always, mate. The only time when this may not be the case is when we have incomplete information about the nature of the question, in which case we tend to fill in the gaps with our own bullshit. Theists are the folk who set the benchmark for this practice.

"simplex sigillum veri"...the simple is the seal of the true.

When in doubt, assume that reality is exactly what it appears to be.

I've been knocked unconscious, and I've been asleep without recalled dreams. And under those circumstances, there is no mind, or at least consciousness, though my existence persists. That goes a long way to informing me that brain death is probably the same, and likely permanent, regarding end of mind and the thing I call 'self'.

[Obvious Leo]

Unfortunately in the course of my various physical ailments I've had to undergo a number of surgical procedures under general anaesthetic. I have a close friend who is an anaesthetist and she reckons general anaesthesia is precisely analogous to death. I'm more than willing to believe it because it is a complete cessation of any form of consciousness whatsoever, especially one's awareness of the passing of time. One minute a pretty nurse is asking you to count backwards from 100 and the very next minute a different pretty nurse is smiling at you and offering you a cup of tea. You could have been out of it for 10 hours or fifty years and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I assume death will be much the same without the pretty nurses.

[Dalek Prime]

Unfortunately in the course of my various physical ailments I've had to undergo a number of surgical procedures under general anaesthetic. I have a close friend who is an anaesthetist and she reckons general anaesthesia is precisely analogous to death. I'm more than willing to believe it because it is a complete cessation of any form of consciousness whatsoever, especially one's awareness of the passing of time. One minute a pretty nurse is asking you to count backwards from 100 and the very next minute a different pretty nurse is smiling at you and offering you a cup of tea. You could have been out of it for 10 hours or fifty years and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I assume death will be much the same without the pretty nurses.

You won't remember what a pretty nurse is when you're dead, so you won't miss that part anyways.

Happily, in my 51 years, I've managed to avoid requiring general anaesthetic.