Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Belinda]

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?

It is evident to most people that what they can think about, and feel, is not the same as what can be weighed and measured which is their brains. You are talking about epiphenomenalism: that mind is an unnecessary adjunct of brain.
The evidence is such that human beings and probably some other animals too could not exist unless they experienced stuff, and moreover, in the case of human beings ,were aware that they did so.

[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.

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?

I think I've already answered this point:

We would all *like* to think there may be some sort of continuation after bodily death. I would only say [...] 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.

I direct your attention to my final sentence.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sensation happens in the brain.

I think you chose the wrong word? I think perception happens in the brainmind, while sensation is more located with the sensory organs themselves, and their connections to the brainmind. But I agree with the point you're making here (and before).

[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?

I think I've already answered this point:

We would all *like* to think there may be some sort of continuation after bodily death. I would only say [...] 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.

I direct your attention to my final sentence.

So why DID you ask?

[Sculptor1]

Sensation happens in the brain.

I think you chose the wrong word? I think perception happens in the brainmind, while sensation is more located with the sensory organs themselves, and their connections to the brainmind. But I agree with the point you're making here (and before).

No I said exactly what I wanted to say. All sensations ,pain, perceptions of all kinds happen in neural tissue. That is principally the brain but also includes the exceptions I already laid out that there is small amounts of the same tissue in the but and heart.

[Good_Egg]

Lagayscienza , what do you think religion is ?

Seems like you think religion is a type of belief ?

Maybe, from the direction this discussion has taken, you identify religion with philosophies that posit non-corporeal minds ?

That seems to me a not-uncommon view. Amongst those in Western culture, I.e. culture that grew out of Christianity. Which, as a matter of historical accident, came up with creeds as a device for deciding who is part of the religion and who is an outsider, a heretic.

Seems to me that when people say "spiritual but not religious" they mean something like "religious but not credal". Having a sense of the sacred, without signing up to a creed, a belief-package approved by a church hierarchy.

Spirituality is religion for freethinkers.

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, that's how I see spirituality. For me, it amounts to a feeling for the numinous and sacred, without gods and without the hierarchy, hidebound rules and abuses of organized, patriarchal religions.

[Sy Borg]

I like the idea of spirituality. I like the vibe. I like its ideas, mythologies and how it encourages deep thought.

But, in reality, I am about as spiritual as my PC ... analysis, a busy mind and an inability to surrender ... stuff that is basically antithetical to the divine and sacred. Just another dopey chimp. Maybe in my next life haha

[Pattern-chaser]

...what do you think religion is ?

Seems like you think religion is a type of belief ?

Maybe, from the direction this discussion has taken, you identify religion with philosophies that posit non-corporeal minds ?

That seems to me a not-uncommon view. Amongst those in Western culture, I.e. culture that grew out of Christianity. Which, as a matter of historical accident, came up with creeds as a device for deciding who is part of the religion and who is an outsider, a heretic.

Seems to me that when people say "spiritual but not religious" they mean something like "religious but not credal". Having a sense of the sacred, without signing up to a creed, a belief-package approved by a church hierarchy.

Spirituality is religion for freethinkers.

That seems fair enough. Although it's fair to observe that a creed is simply a statement of belief. A creed is a religious group saying "this is what we believe; it is what members of our group believe". There's no obvious harm in that.

But yes, "spirituality" is a wider and more nuanced view on matters non-physical. I would describe my own non-physical beliefs as spiritual, not religious, but I suppose that really doesn't matter. My beliefs are what they are; your beliefs are what *they* are. No matter what label we use to describe them.

I also prefer a non-dogmatic approach to belief, as you also seem to do. Yours is a nice summary.

[Pattern-chaser]

I like the idea of spirituality. I like the vibe. I like its ideas, mythologies and how it encourages deep thought.

But, in reality, I am about as spiritual as my PC ...

It seems not. Your first sentence seems to contradict what follows. Your "liking" for spirituality seems to say that you have spiritual beliefs, even if you don't care to pursue them beyond that "liking". That's OK. Neither religion nor spirituality are compulsory.

[Pattern-chaser]

All sensations ,pain, perceptions of all kinds happen in neural tissue. That is principally the brain but also includes the exceptions I already laid out that there is small amounts of the same tissue in the but and heart.

Processing of (for example) optical sensation begins in the optic nerve, before the impulses (?) reach the brain. Yes, brains and nerves are made of the same sorts of cells; neurons, and the like, are not confined to the brain. They are all over our bodies. The distribution of 'function' is such that it makes made-up terms like brainmind or bodymind more useful than just brain, mind and body.

We love to separate aspects of ourselves and our bodyminds, but the truth seems to be that most 'function' is distributed, not concentrated. Is this what you're getting at?

[Sculptor1]

All sensations ,pain, perceptions of all kinds happen in neural tissue. That is principally the brain but also includes the exceptions I already laid out that there is small amounts of the same tissue in the but and heart.

Processing of (for example) optical sensation begins in the optic nerve, before the impulses (?) reach the brain. Yes, brains and nerves are made of the same sorts of cells; neurons, and the like, are not confined to the brain. They are all over our bodies. The distribution of 'function' is such that it makes made-up terms like brainmind or bodymind more useful than just brain, mind and body.

We love to separate aspects of ourselves and our bodyminds, but the truth seems to be that most 'function' is distributed, not concentrated. Is this what you're getting at?

Erratum above should have said "gut" not "but".
Aside from brain gut and heart I disagree with your POV.
I am taking about "feeling"; sensation, perception, and pain. It's neural phenomenon. Ordinary nerves carry electrical impulses, the neural matter interprets and this interpretation is the "feeling".

[Count Lucanor]

"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.

Anesthesia? Guess what, you need a body for that to work in the first place. That goes to my point that all our experiences occur in the unity of the self that is the body. Sensations happen in your body, through its senses in connection with the whole CNS, that includes the brain.
People without a limb had to have a real limb at some time in their lives for it to have been imprinted in their brain.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am talking about "feeling"; sensation, perception, and pain. It's a neural phenomenon. Ordinary nerves carry electrical impulses, the neural matter interprets, and this interpretation is the "feeling".

I wouldn't've expected "feeling" to refer to sensation and perception. Isn't the word more normally used to refer to emotions, not perception? Sorry for my confusion.

[Belinda]

All sensations ,pain, perceptions of all kinds happen in neural tissue. That is principally the brain but also includes the exceptions I already laid out that there is small amounts of the same tissue in the but and heart.

Processing of (for example) optical sensation begins in the optic nerve, before the impulses (?) reach the brain. Yes, brains and nerves are made of the same sorts of cells; neurons, and the like, are not confined to the brain. They are all over our bodies. The distribution of 'function' is such that it makes made-up terms like brainmind or bodymind more useful than just brain, mind and body.

We love to separate aspects of ourselves and our bodyminds, but the truth seems to be that most 'function' is distributed, not concentrated. Is this what you're getting at?

Erratum above should have said "gut" not "but".
Aside from brain gut and heart I disagree with your POV.
I am taking about "feeling"; sensation, perception, and pain. It's neural phenomenon. Ordinary nerves carry electrical impulses, the neural matter interprets and this interpretation is the "feeling".

"neural matter" acts electro-chemically .The grey matter is where concepts and percepts form feelings. Feelings are subjective and can't be measured like electro-chemical activity can be measured.
I always think the reflex arc is a useful means for getting the general idea of neural activity