The very title of the book singles out the mind. It doesn't say the man in the cave, it says the mind is in the cave. I started a philosophy module this year and i believed after studying this year in philosophy that the mind is completely separate to the brain. I began to see the mind as a superior being to the brain and the body, following Descartes - 'Cogito, ergo sum' (I think therefore I am).. I don't deny that I believe the mind is part of the brain, but I did begin to see the possibility of a soul.

I also accepted the fact that people change in certain situations and that contradictions in personalities are natural.

I also believed, following Matt Ridley's book, that we are shaped by our DNA. That are very personalities are laid down by the building blocks of DNA - an aggressive person has aggressive genes which are pronounced by the environment they are in.

I am at a crossroads. I don't know what to believe. I want to believe that there is a soul and the mind is your soul and that it is above and beyond the brain and the body. BUT as I read today, brain damage gives a very concrete argument to the fact that there is no mind and just a brain.

What are your thoughts on this philosophical issue?

---

What are your thoughts on this philosophical issue?

---

I can't believe anyone would take that kind of dualism (even property dualism is pushing it) seriously given even what little we already know about the brain.

As for genetics - you're a fool if you think genetics are the entirety of our personality, or even characteristics. Yes, they play a major part. So does socialization. It's both, and most researchers agree on that much, though they may disagree on how much of each and other specifics.

As far as philosophy of the mind goes, I am primarily a functionalist. The human mind and the brain are the same thing, though a mind can be something other than a brain so long as it fills the same role.
I think anything that works on the principle of neural networks with enough complexity has the capability of being a mind.

Post edited at 1:35 pm on Nov. 6, 2009 by Stormblazer

-------
Religion: Atheistic agnostic, political independent
Polyamory FAQ Relationships

---

Mind, body, and soul. Are all seperate. At least, that's what I would like to believe. However, it's hard to prove that we are anything more than a mere collection of atoms.

---

So you believe there is a mind?

What is your argument for believing in a mind, and not just a brain?

---

Mind, body, and soul. Are all seperate. At least, that's what I would like to believe. However, it's hard to prove that we are anything more than a mere collection of atoms.

---

---

As for genetics - you're a fool if you think genetics are the entirety of our personality, or even characteristics. Yes, they play a major part. So does socialization. It's both, and most researchers agree on that much, though they may disagree on how much of each and other specifics.

---

I do believe I made reference to environment, which would include socialisation.

A common analogy being that a the genes being a boxer and the environment being a coach, the boxer will get better in certain areas depeding on the coach, but if he is genetically better in some areas then those will improve and improve even greater if his coach is able in those areas.

---

Why can a soul not be the combination of a spirit (IDK what that would be though) and the brain? Your spirit can be eternal and the Brain temporary... hmmm IDK I would have to think on this.

---

---

Why can a soul not be the combination of a spirit (IDK what that would be though) and the brain? Your spirit can be eternal and the Brain temporary... hmmm IDK I would have to think on this.

---

The mind is the continuous functioning of the physical states of the brain. Any interference in those affects the mind, it is a purely physical entity.

This touches on why property dualism is pushing it, but does not actually fall into absurdity like old school dualism does:
It reflects a claim about something we cannot actually know. IMO this makes it rather useless, but still technically possible.

-------
Religion: Atheistic agnostic, political independent
Polyamory FAQ Relationships

---

Aside from being obviously false (the most basic understanding of neurological science pretty much ruins dualism utterly), it just makes everything ambiguous and mystical.

---

Chalmers once said "No matter how much you know about the brain, you won't understand consciousness."

By consciousness he was referring to the mind and its ability to recognise its own thoughts, sense of guilt, &c.

---

Quote: from bipolarmania at 2:36 pm on Nov. 6, 2009

---

Why can a soul not be the combination of a spirit (IDK what that would be though) and the brain? Your spirit can be eternal and the Brain temporary... hmmm IDK I would have to think on this.

---

I'm not sure anyone is saying that this cannot be so much as there is no reason whatsoever to believe this. It involves positing a strange, intangible, but yet somehow significant essence that is somehow linked to a temporary, physical organ and then will somehow disengage it because of its eternal nature, and I'm hard pressed to think of why I should accept any of those things.

---

Socrates argued that in Euthyphro or Crito.

It was quite a good argument too.

---

Quote: from Stormblazer at 1:33 pm on Nov. 6, 2009

---

Aside from being obviously false (the most basic understanding of neurological science pretty much ruins dualism utterly), it just makes everything ambiguous and mystical.

---

 

Chalmers once said "No matter how much you know about the brain, you won't understand consciousness."  

By consciousness he was referring to the mind and its ability to recognise its own thoughts, sense of guilt, &c.

---

Technically I would agree- but that doesn't support dualism.
There are couple different analogies, but given that I'm sick in bed I'll jump straight to the point:
We don't understand consciousness because we don't intuitively understand neural networks and related phenomena.
Consciousness is an emergent property. It is not separate, nor is it necessarily generated. It's a feature of the system as a whole.

A computer does not function without it's various parts all in place - it refers to something that is a whole comprised of components. The window in the web browser I'm typing in seems pretty clear to me, but it's actually the pixel-by-pixel output of my video card, which is in turn just an instruction by instruction processing of binary electronic signals, which is in turn just the movement of electrons.

I may know all of this, but I will never get from the quantum state of electrons to the text on my screen.

It's no a perfect analogy, but it's the closest I can demonstrate off the top of my head while sick in bed.

Post edited at 2:15 pm on Nov. 6, 2009 by Stormblazer

-------
Religion: Atheistic agnostic, political independent
Polyamory FAQ Relationships

---

Quote: from Dedalus at 2:24 pm on Nov. 6, 2009

---

What are your thoughts on this philosophical issue?

---

Thoughts?
Cartesian dualism requires that you deny practically the entire existence of neurological science.

I can't believe anyone would take that kind of dualism (even property dualism is pushing it) seriously given even what little we already know about the brain.

As for genetics - you're a fool if you think genetics are the entirety of our personality, or even characteristics. Yes, they play a major part. So does socialization. It's both, and most researchers agree on that much, though they may disagree on how much of each and other specifics.

As far as philosophy of the mind goes, I am primarily a functionalist. The human mind and the brain are the same thing, though a mind can be something other than a brain so long as it fills the same role.
I think anything that works on the principle of neural networks with enough complexity has the capability of being a mind.

---

This.

Dualism is stupid.

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov