prominent neuroscience folk who don't believe mind is just the product of brain activity

[Skepdick]

New thread, continued from The Democrat Party Hates America thread...

First up: neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield.

I won't post a bio for him (he's not obscure, just google him).

He wrote Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of Consciousness and the Human Brain: https://ia801509.us.archive.org/33/item ... ind%20.pdf

"It will always be quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain.... Although the content of consciousness depends in large measure on neuronal activity, awareness itself does not....To me, it seems more and more reasonable to suggest that the mind may be a distinct and different essence"

Next post: neuroscientist John Eccles

The more I get into the engine room of science - the more all of this nonsense seems like nothing other than a controversy generator to attract minds into the scientific meatgrinder.

Must! Construct! Models!

Must! Explain! Made up meta-problem!

Academia is consuming intellectual energy on totally meaningless questions. It's all busy-work.

There is no such thing as "mind". It's just a shorthand. Convenient language to separate something which our ontological language cannot capture and will never account for. Something that reductionism can never reduce.

Can we deflate all this bullshit already? Science will never come to answer any questions of personal identity; nor will it ever perform the function of filling the spiritual void, the philosophical wound left behind by asking such questions.

Misrepresenting metaphysical squabbles as scientific problems wastes a lot of fucking social resources! If academia can't self-regulate this kind of stupidity people like Trump (who defund science) will keep getting elected to correct the failures of self-limitation.

Within the domain of science there are such things as stupid questions. Learn to say "no" to them!

[Belinda]

Where is that famous American pragmatism.
Which belief concerning mind is more likely to result in peace and prosperity?

Henry, I am not adamant about my beliefs which I adapt or change according to new ideas and new evidences. It's sign of stupidity and conceit to be adamant about one's beliefs. I am afraid I may sound adamant about my beliefs but it would be impractical if we all wrote preambles to the effect that the opinions that follow are pro tem.

I'm only adamant about my knowledge beliefs. Is that stupid and conceited? I know that nature is eternal and infinite and purposeless. No preamble necessary.

It is stupid to be intransigent about what one thinks one knows. You may at any time experience a mystical awareness that enables you to know that nature is purposeful, and that nature's purpose is your own.--- unlikely but possible.

It's much more probable that you discover you were mistaken in your belief that no swans are black.
Or that Shakespeare was a woman. Or that your dog does not have fleas. Or that hard floors are better than carpets. Or that Belinda likes lists.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Where is that famous American pragmatism.
Which belief concerning mind is more likely to result in peace and prosperity?

Henry, I am not adamant about my beliefs which I adapt or change according to new ideas and new evidences. It's sign of stupidity and conceit to be adamant about one's beliefs. I am afraid I may sound adamant about my beliefs but it would be impractical if we all wrote preambles to the effect that the opinions that follow are pro tem.

I'm only adamant about my knowledge beliefs. Is that stupid and conceited? I know that nature is eternal and infinite and purposeless. No preamble necessary.

It is stupid to be intransigent about what one thinks one knows. You may at any time experience a mystical awareness that enables you to know that nature is purposeful, and that nature's purpose is your own.--- unlikely but possible.

It's much more probable that you discover you were mistaken in your belief that no swans are black.
Or that Shakespeare was a woman. Or that your dog does not have fleas. Or that hard floors are better than carpets. Or that Belinda likes lists.

I know I know what I know. Anything else is madness. With regard to that knowledge. There is no alternative to infinite eternal (qualitatively unchangeable) nature, God or no. And there is no God. I bet my life on it.

[henry quirk]

Henry, I am not adamant about my beliefs

If you say so, B.

[henry quirk]

I hear ya, but...

that's not what the thread was about. In another thread Belinda said most neuroscientists believed mind was nuthin' more than brain activity. I disagreed and said some do believe that but a great many do not. This thread was to be a list of all the prominent folks who don't.

But, as often happens in the place, the thread was hijacked, and Belinda didn't/doesn't seem to give a flip now anyway, so I stopped.

...and now we're talkin' about other stuff.

[Skepdick]

I hear ya, but...

that's not what the thread was about. In another thread Belinda said most neuroscientists believed mind was nuthin' more than brain activity. I disagreed and said some do believe that but a great many do not. This thread was to be a list of all the prominent folks who don't.

But, as often happens in the place, the thread was hijacked, and Belinda didn't/doesn't seem to give a flip now anyway, so I stopped.

...and now we're talkin' about other stuff.

OK but there is"nothing more than brain activity" - 5 neurons firing; and "nothing more than brain activity" - 86 billion of them firing, interacting, processing information from various senses.

There is a spectrum of complexity there without the need to draw a line - a combinatorial explosion that people do not seem to appreciate.

That our cognitive system cannot reduce itself; and that we choose to call this irreducible aspect of ourselves "mind" is neither here nor there.

It's the sort of nonsense that you get when language goes on holiday.

If you reverse the usual hierarchy there isn't even such a thing as a brain without all the supporting life systems.

So reducing yourself to "just brain" is exactly the same sort of error as "reducing mind to just brain" You can try to Sorites yourself all you want; and see how much trauma you can endure before you disappear; of course.

This is standard embodied cognition stuff...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition

[Belinda]

I hear ya, but...

that's not what the thread was about. In another thread Belinda said most neuroscientists believed mind was nuthin' more than brain activity. I disagreed and said some do believe that but a great many do not. This thread was to be a list of all the prominent folks who don't.

But, as often happens in the place, the thread was hijacked, and Belinda didn't/doesn't seem to give a flip now anyway, so I stopped.

...and now we're talkin' about other stuff.

OK but there is"nothing more than brain activity" - 5 neurons firing; and "nothing more than brain activity" - 86 billion of them firing, interacting, processing information from various senses.

There is a spectrum of complexity there without the need to draw a line - a combinatorial explosion that people do not seem to appreciate.

That our cognitive system cannot reduce itself; and that we choose to call this irreducible aspect of ourselves "mind" is neither here nor there.

It's the sort of nonsense that you get when language goes on holiday.

If you reverse the usual hierarchy there isn't even such a thing as a brain without all the supporting life systems.

So reducing yourself to "just brain" is exactly the same sort of error as "reducing mind to just brain" You can try to Sorites yourself all you want; and see how much trauma you can endure before you disappear; of course.

This is standard embodied cognition stuff...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embodied_cognition

BTW Henry misreoresents me in the quote above

[henry quirk]

Henry misreoresents me in the quote above

My apologies.

[henry quirk]

Okay.

[iambiguous]

Are you telling me though it's perfectly okay for these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- to disagree about God? 

I don't know if it's okay in some ultimate, metaphysical sense. I only know know, here and now, it happens.

All I can do here is to note once again what I construe to be an enormous gap between religious denominations regarding the One True Path on this side of the grave, and the parts revolving around immortality and salvation given one or another rendition of "or else" on the other side.

Though, who knows, if IC's Christian God is the real deal, someday you and I may be up at the Pearly Gates explaining to Him why we are not "here and now" Christians ourselves. 

If so, do you [or anyone else here] happen to know where the lines are drawn? What's more or less okay to have disagreements about, and what's not? What behaviors are more or less okay, and what behaviors are not? Either the part about being "saved" is something mere mortals invented to comfort and console themselves in the face of death/oblivion, or one or another rendition of Judgment day is the real deal and mere mortals had better be able to cut the mustard...or else.  

It all appears to be on the table: what people believe about God, about right and wrong, about the afterlife and final rewards and punishments, and on and on. As I say: proofs are not currently available and evidences are open to interpretation.

Okay, we can just agree to disagree regarding our assessment of God. But with all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, you would think that a God, the God would be considerably more adept at putting the breadcrumbs down to guide mere mortals to the part where they are either saved or left behind.

We'll, not counting those like Immanuel Can, right?

Best I can tell: Mannie is in the same boat as the rest of us.

Not really, in my view. IC is able to sustain a belief "in his head" that in accepting Jesus Christ as his personal savior, he is bound for Glory on the other side. And for all of eternity. And I personally know just how comforting and consoling that can be because I once believed it myself. On the other hand, IC is also convinced that WLC/RF have provided us with substantive and substantial scientific and historical proof that He does exist.

Thus...

He seems adamant that unless you and I come to accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior, it's burn baby burn. Me, I've tried in vain to get him to discuss the part where WLC and the RF folks insist one can abandon the leap of faith [and even the Bible] and actually know that the Christian God does in fact exist. Why? Because the scientific and historical facts are there to nail this down.

We're all adamant about our beliefs. I can't help you with your Mannie problem.

Well, with IC the problem revolves around the fact that [for me] he insists there is but one Divine solution. And he's got actual demonstrable evidence that it is his own Christian God [and only Him] who can save our souls. But he won't go here  --  viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- in order to explore it further.

In other words, if a God, the God does in fact exist, it's still got to be the...right God? 

Obviously if God exists then He is as He is no matter what anyone thinks or believes. Mebbe Mannie is right. Or mebbe I'm right. Or mebbe Belinda is right. Or mebbe you are. Or mebbe we're all wrong.

Yes, that frame of mind works for some. But "maybe it's this God or that God or some God worshipped and adored by those on another planet or another universe or No God at all...?"

"Maybe" just doesn't cut it here for others though. The only way they are able to make sense of themselves out in the world is to believe just the opposite. It really is their God [and only their God] that saves souls. 
 

Okay? No parts at all above not okay?

I say okay cuz there's nuthin' else for me to say. I know you want fulminating but I can't give you that.

No, what I want is an argument able to convince me that No God moral nihilism is actually unreasonable...something that I can distance myself from. 

All I can say is if interpretation revolves around those "dangling conversations" like "what did the movie mean?" or "Is Trump a good president?" or "Is modern art really art at all?" that's one thing...but if it revolves around which God has the capacity to save our souls...?

Well, interpretation is, as i say, all we have.

However others interpret that, of course.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I have no option but to interpret all of that as forever mired downstream of (arbitrary, incoherent, superstitious, biased, delusional, unconsilient, irrational, placist, unwarranted, enculturated, unjustified,) untrue belief. Not even metaphysics.

[Belinda]

Are you telling me though it's perfectly okay for these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- to disagree about God? 

I don't know if it's okay in some ultimate, metaphysical sense. I only know know, here and now, it happens.

All I can do here is to note once again what I construe to be an enormous gap between religious denominations regarding the One True Path on this side of the grave, and the parts revolving around immortality and salvation given one or another rendition of "or else" on the other side.

Though, who knows, if IC's Christian God is the real deal, someday you and I may be up at the Pearly Gates explaining to Him why we are not "here and now" Christians ourselves. 

If so, do you [or anyone else here] happen to know where the lines are drawn? What's more or less okay to have disagreements about, and what's not? What behaviors are more or less okay, and what behaviors are not? Either the part about being "saved" is something mere mortals invented to comfort and console themselves in the face of death/oblivion, or one or another rendition of Judgment day is the real deal and mere mortals had better be able to cut the mustard...or else.  

It all appears to be on the table: what people believe about God, about right and wrong, about the afterlife and final rewards and punishments, and on and on. As I say: proofs are not currently available and evidences are open to interpretation.

Okay, we can just agree to disagree regarding our assessment of God. But with all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, you would think that a God, the God would be considerably more adept at putting the breadcrumbs down to guide mere mortals to the part where they are either saved or left behind.

We'll, not counting those like Immanuel Can, right?

Best I can tell: Mannie is in the same boat as the rest of us.

Not really, in my view. IC is able to sustain a belief "in his head" that in accepting Jesus Christ as his personal savior, he is bound for Glory on the other side. And for all of eternity. And I personally know just how comforting and consoling that can be because I once believed it myself. On the other hand, IC is also convinced that WLC/RF have provided us with substantive and substantial scientific and historical proof that He does exist.

Thus...

He seems adamant that unless you and I come to accept Jesus Christ as our personal savior, it's burn baby burn. Me, I've tried in vain to get him to discuss the part where WLC and the RF folks insist one can abandon the leap of faith [and even the Bible] and actually know that the Christian God does in fact exist. Why? Because the scientific and historical facts are there to nail this down.

We're all adamant about our beliefs. I can't help you with your Mannie problem.

Well, with IC the problem revolves around the fact that [for me] he insists there is but one Divine solution. And he's got actual demonstrable evidence that it is his own Christian God [and only Him] who can save our souls. But he won't go here  --  viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- in order to explore it further.

In other words, if a God, the God does in fact exist, it's still got to be the...right God? 

Obviously if God exists then He is as He is no matter what anyone thinks or believes. Mebbe Mannie is right. Or mebbe I'm right. Or mebbe Belinda is right. Or mebbe you are. Or mebbe we're all wrong.

Yes, that frame of mind works for some. But "maybe it's this God or that God or some God worshipped and adored by those on another planet or another universe or No God at all...?"

"Maybe" just doesn't cut it here for others though. The only way they are able to make sense of themselves out in the world is to believe just the opposite. It really is their God [and only their God] that saves souls. 
 

Okay? No parts at all above not okay?

I say okay cuz there's nuthin' else for me to say. I know you want fulminating but I can't give you that.

No, what I want is an argument able to convince me that No God moral nihilism is actually unreasonable...something that I can distance myself from. 

All I can say is if interpretation revolves around those "dangling conversations" like "what did the movie mean?" or "Is Trump a good president?" or "Is modern art really art at all?" that's one thing...but if it revolves around which God has the capacity to save our souls...?

Well, interpretation is, as i say, all we have.

However others interpret that, of course.

Interpretation is not quite all we have. We also have evidence and theories. Theories are useful as we can test theories' claims. In view of the problem of evil evidence is not much help in our search for God, truth, and beauty.

There remains pragmatism. I'm not your standard atheist because I hold that the idea of God is flexible and even progresses according to human need.
The idea of God is a combination of moral code, myth, and religious practice.
Each of the above can be changed.

And should be changed according to human need.

The world scene in 2025 shows that traditional ideas of God don't work any more, and are often divisive.

We need, not atheism, but reasonable religion and reasonable science. Minds , together with ordinary human sympathy, are all we have for reasoning with .

Whether or not "minds are just the product of brain activity" minds are real and are all we have for reasoning and feeling with.

[henry quirk]

All I can do here is to note once again what I construe to be an enormous gap between religious denominations regarding the One True Path on this side of the grave, and the parts revolving around immortality and salvation given one or another rendition of "or else" on the other side.

Yeah, it's almost like we all believe stuff but none of us actually know anything so we're all left to our own devices to figure sumthin' out.

Though, who knows, if IC's Christian God is the real deal, someday you and I may be up at the Pearly Gates explaining to Him why we are not "here and now" Christians ourselves. 

We may indeed.

*Okay, we can just agree to disagree regarding our assessment of God. **But with all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, you would think that a God, the God would be considerably more adept at putting the breadcrumbs down to guide mere mortals to the part where they are either saved or left behind.

*Doesn't seem to me to be about we can so much as we often do, disagree, I mean, and not always agreeing to.

**Well, it depends on which God you're talkin' about, doesn't it.

Not really, in my view. IC is able to sustain a belief "in his head" that in accepting Jesus Christ as his personal savior, he is bound for Glory on the other side. And for all of eternity. And I personally know just how comforting and consoling that can be because I once believed it myself. On the other hand, IC is also convinced that WLC/RF have provided us with substantive and substantial scientific and historical proof that He does exist.

All that means is Mannie believes (and has, in his view, good reason to). So do I (in Someone different, with, in my view, good reason). But neither of us knows. We may think we do, or feel like we do, but, really, we don't.

No one does.

Well, with IC the problem revolves around the fact that [for me] he insists there is but one Divine solution. And he's got actual demonstrable evidence that it is his own Christian God [and only Him] who can save our souls. But he won't go here  --  viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- in order to explore it further.

Yeah, I know your beef with the guy. Who doesn't? You've plaster'd it all over the forum. Again: I can't help you with any of that.

Yes, that frame of mind works for some. But "maybe it's this God or that God or some God worshipped and adored by those on another planet or another universe or No God at all...?"

Yep, it's a conundrum.

"Maybe" just doesn't cut it here for others though. The only way they are able to make sense of themselves out in the world is to believe just the opposite. It really is their God [and only their God] that saves souls.

And, of course, that's what they do.

No, what I want is an argument able to convince me that No God moral nihilism is actually unreasonable...something that I can distance myself from.

I can't help you with that either. I can tell you what I believe and why (I already have). Can't do more than that.

However others interpret that, of course.

Of course.

[Impenitent]

"There's no political solution
to our troubled evolution
have no faith in constitution
there's no bloody revolution..."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHOevX4DlGk

-Imp

[leib007]

https://philpapers.org/rec/CALBNS - Looks at consciousness outside neuroscience.