Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Belinda]

One is not necessarily a Cartesian dualist to claim brain and mind are not identical.

One is a philosopher if one simply wonders if brain and mind might not be identical. Perhaps a "claim" might be delayed until supporting evidence of some sort is available? But yes, let's not just accept claims at face value. Why would we?

This is usually discusses on some book or short article on theories of what may be held to exist i.e. ontology.

The most expert anatomist looking at a brain can't tell you whether or not the brain is thinking of Marilyn Monroe or Melania Trump. How anyone can claim the brain and the mind are identical is explicable only by lack of imagination.

[Sculptor1]

In the context of feelings, 'brainminds' is better than 'brains' . You seem to be denying that mind is not part of your normal experience and implying that mind is synonymous with brain.
Did you never consider that mind is the immeasurable and subjective aspect of brain.

You are not a brain, as I guess you would agree. Neither are you a mind. On the contrary, you are composed of mind, brain, and body-proper.

It is a no-brainer that the brain is as good as synonymous to mind. Aside from the existence of tiny amounts of neural matter in the gut and heart, the brain is what generates all mental activity.
There is no mental activity unless the brain is in good working order ,and the cessation of brain activity is the end of anything you can call "mind".
In essence the mind is what the brain DOES.
It is simply disabling to pretend otherwise and not really a helpful dualism.

But you probably use the word 'mind' to refer to not only that part of the anatomy that thinks, but also to mean the content of your thought.
One is not necessarily a Cartesian dualist to claim brain and mind are not identical. One can claim as do I that 'brain' and 'mind' are respectively the objective and subjective aspects of brainmind.

Its more like the difference between noun and verb; whereas the dualistic approach is more like two puppies in the same sack.

[Sculptor1]

One is not necessarily a Cartesian dualist to claim brain and mind are not identical.

One is a philosopher if one simply wonders if brain and mind might not be identical. Perhaps a "claim" might be delayed until supporting evidence of some sort is available? But yes, let's not just accept claims at face value. Why would we?

This is usually discusses on some book or short article on theories of what may be held to exist i.e. ontology.

The most expert anatomist looking at a brain can't tell you whether or not the brain is thinking of Marilyn Monroe or Melania Trump. How anyone can claim the brain and the mind are identical is explicable only by lack of imagination.

LOL.
Take care with the sideways insults.
Tell, me then, where does your imagination take you?
What do you mean "identical". Identical can mean "the same", but does not have to. If that was all it mean then we'd have no need for the word . The mind identifies as what the brain does; the brain identifies as the organ that generates the energetic field that is the mind. It is not dualistic to say that the MP3 player is not identical to the music.
None of this comes close to the disabling dualism which sees the mind as independant of the body.

[Gee]

This is another religious idea -- not science.

In the context of this exchange, religion and science have much in common. Holism is central to both ... or should be. One thing holism emphasises is connection. In the case of religion, this might be exemplified by our human connection to God. In science, it might be exemplified by network theory. These are only simple and silly examples; it's the basic point that is central: connection — universal, and Universal, connection.

The Universe is one thing, intricately and internally connected in almost every possible way. This influences everything, I think.

Yes. Religion and science have much in common as they are both disciplines that seek knowledge. Holistic thought may be central to both, but holism is not. You have turned a way of processing information into a belief system. After reading some of your posts, one could be forgiven for thinking that you have decided to spell "God" as U n i v e r s e, as you seem to see no real difference between them.

Holistic thought is about how things relate, not how they connect. This is why Einstein's theory is about relativity, not connectivity.

Gee

[Count Lucanor]

Well...if one goes to the extreme of specifically calling it non-spiritual, emphasizing material, fleshy embodiment, just to leave no doubt that it does not adhere to any of the common conceptions of spiritual, and still a person will come up to say "hey, that's spiritual", there's not much I can do for that person and I don't think I would even want.

Materialists do not deny that people have feelings. From how you might love your children or a dog to seeing a sunset.
Tell me exactly why that is any different from whatever "common conceptions of spiritual," is supposed to mean?
From my experience people that call themselves "spiritual" are not more emotionally effected by buauty; a sunset; a puppy; or love for their family.
On the contrary I have known those claiming to be spiritual as sometimes lofty and fail to see beauty in life but are stuck in themsleves.
I see no reason to think that is nothing more than deluded introspection.

Feelings only happen in someone's body, nowhere else. All that makes it "a feeling" has to do with that material body, not reduced to the brain, but the whole body that participates in it.

No. Not really.
When you hit your thumb with a hammer, it is felt in the brain.

"Feeling it in the brain" does not mean the effect of the hammer magically teletransporting to a location in the brain. It hits skin, muscle and bone tissues in the thumb where neurons called pain receptors are located. This receptors from the Peripheral Nervous System, which is distributed in the whole body, send the pain signals to the Central Nervous System via fibers in the spinal cord, and then to the brain. The system which makes this work is comprised by the Peripheral Nervous System and the Central Nervous System, covering the whole body.

Last time I saw, nerves were very fleshy, bodily parts. We experience the world with our bodies.

[Sculptor1]

Materialists do not deny that people have feelings. From how you might love your children or a dog to seeing a sunset.
Tell me exactly why that is any different from whatever "common conceptions of spiritual," is supposed to mean?
From my experience people that call themselves "spiritual" are not more emotionally effected by buauty; a sunset; a puppy; or love for their family.
On the contrary I have known those claiming to be spiritual as sometimes lofty and fail to see beauty in life but are stuck in themsleves.
I see no reason to think that is nothing more than deluded introspection.

Feelings only happen in someone's body, nowhere else. All that makes it "a feeling" has to do with that material body, not reduced to the brain, but the whole body that participates in it.

No. Not really.
When you hit your thumb with a hammer, it is felt in the brain.

"Feeling it in the brain" does not mean the effect of the hammer magically teletransporting to a location in the brain. It hits skin, muscle and bone tissues in the thumb where neurons called pain receptors are located. This receptors from the Peripheral Nervous System, which is distributed in the whole body, send the pain signals to the Central Nervous System via fibers in the spinal cord, and then to the brain. The system which makes this work is comprised by the Peripheral Nervous System and the Central Nervous System, covering the whole body.

Last time I saw, nerves were very fleshy, bodily parts. We experience the world with our bodies.

I think you are missing the point.
No amount of crushed, burned , or otherwise damaged flesh, bone, skin, or sinew has anything to do with pain.
If it did then I would have to take more care chopping up my steaks. And the minced beef I had today would be a horrorific devastation of hell.
Imagine what open heart surgery would be. No Pain is qualia.

[Pattern-chaser]

How anyone can claim the brain and the mind are identical is explicable only by lack of imagination.

I'm not sure if they claim they're *identical*. I think they claim that the mind is generated, or supported, () wholly by the brain. In other words, there is no part of the mind that is *not* dependent on the brain. Their idea could be correct, but it might be mistaken too. I don't think there is enough evidence to go with either hypothesis, is there?

[Pattern-chaser]

None of this comes close to the disabling dualism which sees the mind as independant of the body.

Do people really think the mind could be *independent* of the body? Separate and separable? The mind might not be wholly contained (?) by the body, but...?

Wow.

[Belinda]

None of this comes close to the disabling dualism which sees the mind as independant of the body.

Do people really think the mind could be *independent* of the body? Separate and separable? The mind might not be wholly contained (?) by the body, but...?

Wow.

Some people even think that individual minds have lives after the body dies and decays. I suggest this belief is caused by conflating eternal and everlasting

[Pattern-chaser]

This is another religious idea -- not science.

In the context of this exchange, religion and science have much in common. Holism is central to both ... or should be. One thing holism emphasises is connection. In the case of religion, this might be exemplified by our human connection to God. In science, it might be exemplified by network theory. These are only simple and silly examples; it's the basic point that is central: connection — universal, and Universal, connection.

The Universe is one thing, intricately and internally connected in almost every possible way. This influences everything, I think.

Yes. Religion and science have much in common as they are both disciplines that seek knowledge. Holistic thought may be central to both, but holism is not.

Fair comment.

You have turned a way of processing information into a belief system. After reading some of your posts, one could be forgiven for thinking that you have decided to spell "God" as U n i v e r s e, as you seem to see no real difference between them.

Holism does underpin my spiritual beliefs, but I think it stands on its own, without spiritual 'input'.

Holistic thought is about how things relate, not how they connect. This is why Einstein's theory is about relativity, not connectivity.

Holism is the interdisciplinary idea that systems possess properties as wholes apart from the properties of their component parts. The aphorism "The whole is greater than the sum of its parts", typically attributed to Aristotle, is often given as a glib summary of this proposal. The concept of holism can inform the methodology for a broad array of scientific fields and lifestyle practices. When applications of holism are said to reveal properties of a whole system beyond those of its parts, these qualities are referred to as emergent properties of that system. Holism in all contexts is often placed in opposition to reductionism, a dominant notion in the philosophy of science that systems containing parts contain no unique properties beyond those parts. Proponents of holism consider the search for emergent properties within systems to be demonstrative of their perspective.

I tend to view Holism in a more literal sense, that it's 'Whole-ism', concerning indivisible and inseparable wholes. This stands in opposition, as mentioned above, to reductionist 'divisionism'. And the blue text seems to mention what I just did, that Holism can stand alone and apply to "scientific fields" as well as having a more spiritual component ("lifestyle practices").

"Holistic thought is about how things relate, not how they connect"? It is the connections that give rise to the relationships; the relationships *are* the connections, or are defined by those connections, yes?

And doesn't Einstein's Theory of Relativity simply tell us that velocities, in particular, are relative, as opposed to absolute? I don't think it is directly or significantly concerned with "connections", is it?

[Pattern-chaser]

Some people even think that individual minds have lives after the body dies and decays.

We would all *like* to think there may be some sort of continuation after bodily death. I would only say, in reply to your non-spiritual sentiment, expressed here, that we have no reason to conclude that (some form of) life after bodily death is impossible. To go farther than that, without evidence, is just fantasy, I think.

[Lagayascienza]

Highly evolved and functional brains, and the minds they house, are indivisible and inseparable. Dualism in nonsense. Without a brain there is no mind. Mind emerges from brain and not vice versa. The supernaturalist and Idealistic crowds don't like this. They hate it. Unfortunately for them, it is an intellectual problem they cannot get past. If spirituality is anything, it is based in feelings, and feelings are based in physical brains which produce feelings - all emerges from the workings of matter and energy according the laws of nature. The only way out of this is to posit a supernatural god thingy who keeps mind and matter separate. That may be a comforting idea, and some people still hanker so badly for this, but there is not a shred of evidence to support such a notion.

[Count Lucanor]

Feelings only happen in someone's body, nowhere else. All that makes it "a feeling" has to do with that material body, not reduced to the brain, but the whole body that participates in it.

No. Not really.
When you hit your thumb with a hammer, it is felt in the brain.

"Feeling it in the brain" does not mean the effect of the hammer magically teletransporting to a location in the brain. It hits skin, muscle and bone tissues in the thumb where neurons called pain receptors are located. This receptors from the Peripheral Nervous System, which is distributed in the whole body, send the pain signals to the Central Nervous System via fibers in the spinal cord, and then to the brain. The system which makes this work is comprised by the Peripheral Nervous System and the Central Nervous System, covering the whole body.

Last time I saw, nerves were very fleshy, bodily parts. We experience the world with our bodies.

I think you are missing the point.
No amount of crushed, burned , or otherwise damaged flesh, bone, skin, or sinew has anything to do with pain.
If it did then I would have to take more care chopping up my steaks. And the minced beef I had today would be a horrorific devastation of hell.
Imagine what open heart surgery would be. No Pain is qualia.

OK then, maybe I should have clarified: when I said body, a meant a living body.

[Sculptor1]

None of this comes close to the disabling dualism which sees the mind as independant of the body.

Do people really think the mind could be *independent* of the body? Separate and separable? The mind might not be wholly contained (?) by the body, but...?

Wow.

I'm surprised you are asking this question.
Have you never heard of a "soul" and the idea that the personality can exist without the need for a healthy brain?

[Sculptor1]

No. Not really.
When you hit your thumb with a hammer, it is felt in the brain.

"Feeling it in the brain" does not mean the effect of the hammer magically teletransporting to a location in the brain. It hits skin, muscle and bone tissues in the thumb where neurons called pain receptors are located. This receptors from the Peripheral Nervous System, which is distributed in the whole body, send the pain signals to the Central Nervous System via fibers in the spinal cord, and then to the brain. The system which makes this work is comprised by the Peripheral Nervous System and the Central Nervous System, covering the whole body.

Last time I saw, nerves were very fleshy, bodily parts. We experience the world with our bodies.

I think you are missing the point.
No amount of crushed, burned , or otherwise damaged flesh, bone, skin, or sinew has anything to do with pain.
If it did then I would have to take more care chopping up my steaks. And the minced beef I had today would be a horrorific devastation of hell.
Imagine what open heart surgery would be. No Pain is qualia.

OK then, maybe I should have clarified: when I said body, a meant a living body.

Not even that lets you off. You have heard of anasthesia? It is erfectly possible for a living body to feel no pain.
Additionally people who loose limbs can still "feel" the limb. How would you account for that?
Sensation happens in the brain.