- Some secular scientists argue, for example, that certain neurological disorders which impair the brain's function demonstrate that the mind reduces to the brain because, if the brain was not damaged, then the person's mind would not be likewise "damaged." They would not suffer from certain personality disorders, for instance, which are associated with brain lesions or somesuch. So these secular scientists see a causal relationship between the brain and the mind, with the brain causing the mind.
At best, I'd think this might prove the brain is necessary to mediate the mind. But I don't see how it'd prove the brain generates the mind.
It's like water flowing through pipes. If the pipes are damaged, the water can't flow through. Thus the pipes are necessary for the water to flow from one end to the other. But pipe damage doesn't somehow prove pipes generate water. - Moreover, psychiatrists often use Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) to help patients who suffer from mental disorders like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Depending on the disorder, CBT can be quite effective. BTW, Google "neuroplasticity" here too. As such, this would seem to show that the mind has some influence on the brain, that the influence isn't necessarily unidirectional from brain effecting mind as some secular scientists might argue, but that it might involve the reverse.
- Near Death Experiences (NDEs). There have been NDE cases where the patient is clinically dead. Brain dead. After resuscitation, the same patients were able to accurately report what they saw happen to them in the emergency room or operating table. It's hard to sift the wheat from the chaff as far as NDEs are concerned, but Steve and Jason, among others, have provided helpful info in the past. For example, see this post.
Pages
▼
Saturday, August 07, 2010
Drain bamage
Many secular scientists believe the mind emerges from physical processes originating in the brain. However, there are a couple of problems with this:
Patrick,
ReplyDelete1. On your theory that the brain merely "mediates" the mind, what actually happens to the mind when the brain is damaged? Is the mind still working away just as it always was, but now unable to "flow" through to the world? How does your theory account brain damage causing anterograde amnesia, where a person can no longer create new memories? It certainly seems like the mediated mind nevertheless relies on the physical brain to store its memories. If so, what happens when the brain is gone into the ground, and the no-longer-mediated mind finds itself without any memories at all?
To extend your pipe/water analogy, if we see water drain out of a broken pipe, there reason to think that the water would not flow along those paths in the absence of pipes.
2. When you write "the mind has some influence on the brain, that the influence isn't necessarily unidirectional from brain effecting mind", you're already assuming an ontological duality that is unnecessary to account for the phenomena you describe. If the mind is created by the brain, changes to the mind are merely how we experience changes to the brain.
3. I don't know what you find helpful about the linked post but it doesn't provide much information about NDEs. (It did introduce me to the word "energumen", which is great, and made the interesting claim that "There’s no historical record of a virgin-born psychic who returned bodily from the dead." It's also hilarious.)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm having a hard time here. The last sentence of point 1. should have read:
ReplyDeleteTo extend your pipe/water analogy, if we see water drain out of a broken pipe, there is no reason to think that the water would flow along those paths in the absence of pipes.
I think I got it that time.
Steve Ruble said:
ReplyDelete1. On your theory that the brain merely "mediates" the mind
Actually, it's not my theory, simpliciter. It's my response to the position of some secular scientists. I'm pointing out their position overreaches.
what actually happens to the mind when the brain is damaged? Is the mind still working away just as it always was, but now unable to "flow" through to the world? How does your theory account brain damage causing anterograde amnesia, where a person can no longer create new memories? It certainly seems like the mediated mind nevertheless relies on the physical brain to store its memories. If so, what happens when the brain is gone into the ground, and the no-longer-mediated mind finds itself without any memories at all?
To extend your pipe/water analogy, if we see water drain out of a broken pipe, there reason to think that the water would not flow along those paths in the absence of pipes.
I don't see how this contradicts my point against their position.
Memory "storage" is still poorly understood. Not to mention many other aspects of memory (e.g. memory "retrieval"). Not to mention the mind-brain itself.
But if you want info on what we think we know, you could reference a standard neurological textbook for more detail (e.g. Blumenfeld H. Neuroanatomy Through Clinical Cases).
2. When you write "the mind has some influence on the brain, that the influence isn't necessarily unidirectional from brain effecting mind", you're already assuming an ontological duality that is unnecessary to account for the phenomena you describe. If the mind is created by the brain, changes to the mind are merely how we experience changes to the brain.
No, I'm assuming the perspective some secular scientists would take in order to offer counterpoints. Once again, this isn't my position.
3. I don't know what you find helpful about the linked post but it doesn't provide much information about NDEs. (It did introduce me to the word "energumen", which is great, and made the interesting claim that "There’s no historical record of a virgin-born psychic who returned bodily from the dead." It's also hilarious.)
See the bibliographic list.
Also, see the combox.
Patrick, you wrote:
ReplyDeleteMany secular scientists believe the mind emerges from physical processes originating in the brain.
and,
So these secular scientists see a causal relationship between the brain and the mind, with the brain causing the mind.
At best, I'd think this might prove the brain is necessary to mediate the mind. But I don't see how it'd prove the brain generates the mind.
and,
As such, this would seem to show that the mind has some influence on the brain, that the influence isn't necessarily unidirectional from brain effecting mind as some secular scientists might argue, but that it might involve the reverse.
1. In philosophy of mind the terms you're using have technical meanings (except for "effecting", which I don't recognize), but it doesn't seem like you are respecting those meanings. So when you write, "I don't see how this contradicts my point against their position." it's hard for me to tell exactly what you think your point is. That is why I avoided directly contradicting "your point". Instead, I asked you to explain how this "mediation" thing you introduced was compatible with the fact of anterograde amnesia. You declined to provide any explanation.
2. When you're writing things that don't represent your own position, it's customary to indicate that to the reader. I don't know how I was supposed to tell that Patrick Chan wouldn't stand by the statement "...this would seem to show that the mind has some influence on the brain...", but, since you don't actually think that, never mind.
3. If you need any help sifting the wheat from the chaff on the topic of NDEs, you could read this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/HNDEs.html. Even if you don't trust Keith Augustine, you could explore some of the 150 or so references.
Steve Ruble said:
ReplyDelete1. In philosophy of mind the terms you're using have technical meanings (except for "effecting", which I don't recognize), but it doesn't seem like you are respecting those meanings. So when you write, "I don't see how this contradicts my point against their position." it's hard for me to tell exactly what you think your point is. That is why I avoided directly contradicting "your point".
Another theory for why you don't understand is that it's not so much me but perhaps you. Perhaps you lack reading comprehension skills. Perhaps you can't follow the underlying logic. I don't know why you don't understand. I can't explain it for you.
Instead, I asked you to explain how this "mediation" thing you introduced was compatible with the fact of anterograde amnesia. You declined to provide any explanation.
Another theory for why (as you put it) I "declined to provide any explanation" is because I'm busy with school and don't have time to discuss issues which at any rate are better discussed in neurological textbooks as I referenced for you.
BTW, you might also reference the works of someone like David Chalmers who, as an atheist and property dualist, likewise would find difficulties with the same.
Patrick, are you proud of your response? You felt that an appropriate response to my initial comment was to write,
ReplyDeleteI don't see how this contradicts my point against their position.
Do you think it would have been appropriate for me to respond,
Perhaps you lack reading comprehension skills. Perhaps you can't follow the underlying logic. I don't know why you don't understand. I can't explain it for you.
I wouldn't have been proud of that response. Instead, I responded by explaining which parts of your post were unclear to me, and tried to clarify the purpose of the questions I asked in my initial response. I also pointed out that you had not answered any of those questions. I did not offer any theories as to why you didn't answer them, which makes your response something of a non sequitur:
Another theory for why (as you put it) I "declined to provide any explanation" is because I'm busy with school and don't have time to discuss issues which at any rate are better discussed in neurological textbooks as I referenced for you.
I didn't understand why you'd expect me to look in a "neurological textbook" for information clarifying your position on philosophical issues. However, when I did search the book for the word "mind" using Amazon (16 hits) I found that it has an epilogue which includes this sentence on page 912: "With continued investigation, my opinion is that consciousness will eventually migrate as well into the domain of accepted neurophysiological phenomena." Now, I might tend to discount Blumenfeld as a non-philosopher, but since you seem to consider him an authority on both neurology and philosophy of mind, you may find that his opinion carries more weight.
Steve Ruble said:
ReplyDeletePatrick, are you proud of your response? . . . I wouldn't have been proud of that response.
Well, Mr. Ruble, since I don't seek your personal approval, it really doesn't matter to me what you think or don't think about me.
By the same token, I'll point out you don't have to care what I say about you. The problem, though, is that it seems like you do.
But so what if someone on the internet happens to think it's possible your reading comprehension and logical and reasoning skills are deficient. What matters is whether they actually are, in fact, deficient. Of course, I happen to think I have good reasons for thinking they are i.e. your performance in this thread as well as in a previous thread.
Others can read the threads and decide for themselves.
I didn't understand why you'd expect me to look in a "neurological textbook" for information clarifying your position on philosophical issues. However, when I did search the book for the word "mind" using Amazon (16 hits) I found that it has an epilogue which includes this sentence on page 912: "With continued investigation, my opinion is that consciousness will eventually migrate as well into the domain of accepted neurophysiological phenomena." Now, I might tend to discount Blumenfeld as a non-philosopher, but since you seem to consider him an authority on both neurology and philosophy of mind, you may find that his opinion carries more weight.
1. Since I didn't reference Blumenfeld to you as a philosopher, it's illogical that you'd consider "discount[ing] Blumenfeld as a non-philosopher." If you had good reason, you could discount him as a neurologist. But it doesn't make sense to discount him as a philosopher since neither he nor I have ever claimed he was a philosopher.
At best, you might make an argument against something he's said which is in the realm of the philosophy of mind or other field of philosophy. But then you'd be "discounting" him on the basis of his argument, not on the basis of him as a "non-philosopher."
Of course, as a neurologist, he's probably interested in these matters, so he'll have his opinions - as you've cited. But without the supporting argumentation, that's all it is: his opinion. It doesn't carry any more or less weight than other neurologists' opinions.
Also, although it apparently escapes your notice, just because I happen to agree with an "authority" on one subject doesn't necessarily mean I agree with him in all subjects he comments on. Just because I happen to agree with, say, Plantinga on much of his philosophy doesn't necessarily mean I agree with Plantinga on all his philosophy. Just because I happen to agree with Blumenfeld on most of his neurology doesn't necessarily mean I agree with him on everything he says in his book. Especially not the bits which are still speculative. This is another reason why I think you lack basic logical and reasoning skills.
As an aside, Blumenfeld is (if I recall correctly) either an observant conservative or orthodox Jew. So his "opinion" here would presumably be consistent with his theism.
2. Since you're the one drawing the unsubstantiated inference that I "seem to consider him an authority on both neurology and philosophy of mind," this would once again demonstrate your deficiency in inductive reasoning here.
ReplyDelete3. Since I've also referred you to David Chalmers, who is one of the foremost philosophy of mind scholars today, I'm hardly ignoring the philosophy of mind issues. Not that I'd necessarily agree with everything or even most of he says. He's an atheist, for one. But I mention him because he offers some good arguments against reductive physicalism.
4. Since you asked questions like, "what actually happens to the mind when the brain is damaged?", brought up anterograde amnesia, memory formation and storage, etc., your questions would have neurological and clinical relevance, so I referred you to a standard textbook on the topic. That's sufficient to explain why I referenced the textbook.
BTW, I'm hardly eliminating the philosphy of mind issues. Rather, I'm pointing out that, if you're going to ask the sorts of questions you're asking, then you also need to consider the science as well.
5. Since it's obvious you're not getting it, I'll spell it out for you.
I'm arguing against a reductive materialist or physicalist view of the mind which some secular scientists would espouse. Some of these secular scientists base their argument for reductive physicalism on brain damage affecting personality which they identify with the mind.
In my first point, I said, at best, this might prove the brain is necessary to mediate the mind, but it wouldn't necessarily prove the brain generates the mind. Why? Simply because correlation isn't necessarily causation let alone identification. That's the point of the illustration.
Then, in response to my illustration, you said: "if we see water drain out of a broken pipe, there is no reason to think that the water would flow along those paths in the absence of pipes."
You're assuming my illustration is predicated on the brain mediating the mind. No, my illustration is predicated on reductive physicalism reducing the mind to the brain or the brain's physical processes. All I need to do is point out that correlation isn't necessarily causation.
What's more, my illustration of the point is just that - an illustration. No illustration will be a perfect representation. You're taking it way more literally than I think is warranted.
Or let's look at it this way. Let's say I've used a poor illustration. So what? Does this then disprove my point that correlation is not necessarily causation? No. It just means I've used a poor illustration. But the point remains.
Or let's say I am indeed arguing that the brain mediates the mind in addition to arguing against the reductive physicalist's point that the brain generates the mind (which, of course, isn't my argument). But let's say I'm wrong that the brain mediates the mind. But even if I'm wrong about the brain mediating the mind, I'm not necessarily wrong as far as the reductive physicalist's argument that the brain generates the mind.
In other words, my goal wasn't to prove that I think the brain mediates the mind. Take it or leave it. Rather, my goal was to disprove that the brain generates the mind or the mind reduces to the brain.
Hence it doesn't mean I have to explain what happens if there's no brain, for that would involve my making a case for my views, at least in part. But I'm not making a case for my views here. Like I've pointed out to you, I'm making a case against reductive physicalism. That's different from arguing for my case.
Patrick said:
ReplyDeleteWell, Mr. Ruble, since I don't seek your personal approval, it really doesn't matter to me what you think or don't think about me.
That's fine. If you were to re-read what I wrote, you might notice that my question was actually about your approval for your own behavior. I also stated that I would not have approved of my own behavior, had I behaved like you.
Here's your reference to Blumenfeld's book:
Memory "storage" is still poorly understood. Not to mention many other aspects of memory (e.g. memory "retrieval"). Not to mention the mind-brain itself.
But if you want info on what we think we know, you could reference a standard neurological textbook for more detail (e.g. Blumenfeld H. Neuroanatomy Through Clinical Cases). (My emphasis)
If you didn't mean to endorse Blumenfeld as a source for information about "the mind-brain itself", perhaps you should have left that sentence out. More pertinently, I don't think that one needs to have a thorough understanding of the specific structures which are disrupted in a person who has anterograde amnesia in order to understand that following the disruption of their physical brain, their mind has become profoundly different. I think that's obvious. That is the reason that, when you referred me to a textbook of neurology rather than responding to the philosophic issues raised by that instance of brain affecting the mind, I ignored your reference and gently teased you about it when you pushed it. You appeared to be avoiding answering philosophical questions by deferring to a neurologist, which I felt was unresponsive to my queries.
Now, on to your latest comment, which looks like it may have some content I can actually engage with.
Patrick wrote:
ReplyDeleteSome of these secular scientists base their argument for reductive physicalism on brain damage affecting personality which they identify with the mind.
In my first point, I said, at best, this might prove the brain is necessary to mediate the mind, but it wouldn't necessarily prove the brain generates the mind. Why? Simply because correlation isn't necessarily causation let alone identification. That's the point of the illustration.
I'd like to draw your attention, again, to the fact that you are using technical terms in ways that do not conform to the ways those terms are normally used. I've never encountered anyone simultaneously arguing that the brain is identical to the mind and that the brain generates the mind. Most things can't create things which still are themselves (with the possible exception of God, depending on how you define "beget").
I understand that correlation does not necessitate causation, but unless you're a radical skeptic you have a rubric for deciding when enough correlation has been observed to infer a causal connection. This is what happens when you type on your keyboard and expect letters to show up on the screen.
Now, if you think that there have not been enough observations of correlations between changes to the brain and changes to the mind to decide, based on your rubric, that there is a causal connection between the two, then you can just say that, and I don't know what I could say in response (other than to direct you to Blumenfeld's text). But when you claim that it is prima facie out of the question that such correlation could ever justify a belief in causation, you are implicitly espousing a radical skepticism about causality that I doubt you seriously hold. Hence, my questions.
But I'm not making a case for my views here.
I think that's obvious.
Like I've pointed out to you, I'm making a case against reductive physicalism.
That's less obvious. What you have done so far is claim that correlation does not imply causation, therefore correlations between physical damage to the brain and phenomenological changes experienced by the person with the brain cannot constitute evidence that the brain (has causal power over | generates | is identical with | causes the emergence of) the mind. But that argument can be made against absolutely any claim at all.
Steve: "My typing is causing these letters to appear."
correlation isn't necessarily
causation
Steve: "My speakers don't work when I unplug them."
correlation is not necessarily causation
Steve: "When I press the same key twice, the computer does the same thing each time."
correlation isn't necessarily causation let alone identification
Patrick, your refrain that the brain can't cause/generate/whatever the mind because correlation isn't causation is especially peculiar when contrasted with this claim from your initial post:
ReplyDelete2. Moreover, psychiatrists often use Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) to help patients who suffer from mental disorders like Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Depending on the disorder, CBT can be quite effective. BTW, Google "neuroplasticity" here too. As such, this would seem to show that the mind has some influence on the brain, that the influence isn't necessarily unidirectional from brain effecting mind as some secular scientists might argue, but that it might involve the reverse.
Here, you appear to be claiming that an occasional correlation consisting of
1. A physical interaction between a psychiatrist and a patient, and
2. An improvement in the patient's mental and/or physical state
"would seem to show that the mind has some influence on the brain," rather than claiming that "correlation isn't necessarily causation", as would be more typical. Care to explain why CBT is exempted from your skeptical critique?