6 ms·

> Your mind and your body are the same thing. That is incorrect, but unfortunately a very common misunderstanding. The mind is highly correlated with the brai

> Your mind and your body are the same thing. That is incorrect, but unfortunately a very common misunderstanding. The mind is highly correlated with the brain but it is not the brain. It’s easy to see this is the case because the brain is made up of a qualitatively different material than the mind. While the brain is composed of biological cells / chemistry / atoms, the mind is composed of things like sense-perceptions (like colours, smells, sounds, etc), emotions, etc. Which is to say that the mind is composed of material that is fundamentally different from the brain. Of course they’re highly correlated but they are in fact separate entities composed of different materials. You may say that the fundamental materials of the mind are reducible to the same things as the brain, but that would be confusing correlation for the thing itself. Take for example the colour red, which is present in the mind but not the brain. Yes the brain enables the perception of red but it is not red itself. Eg a photon with a wavelength of approximately 620-750nm is often confused for red but in fact it’s just a photon which, when it hits the back of our eyes causes a chemical cascade from the relevant cone cells. So it’s abundantly clear this photon in itself is not red because it just causes a specific chemical cascade at back of our eyes. So is this chemical cascade red? No it’s just a chemical cascade that is highly correlated with red appearing in our mind. The right answer, I believe, is simply that red is highly correlated with specific pathways of chemical cascades in our brain. The point remains that the brain and the mind are separate and distinct entities made up of qualitatively different material. If you disagree with this assessment, please tell me what is red?

mcguire 7y ago
"The mind is highly correlated with the brain but it is not the brain." ... in roughly the same way that a process is not a processor. Or a program, for that matter.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  Okay, if you're saying that the mind is just the sequence of events occurring inside the brain, I certainly won't argue that the sequence of events doesn't exist. However, I don't think that's what most people mean when they say "mind", and using the word "mind" brings with it a lot of baggage, so I'd prefer to use a more descriptive term, like "sequence of events".
  - mcguire 7y ago
    "Sequence of events", to me, doesn't capture the relationship between subsequent states of either the brain or the mind. Also, "states of mind" have an explanatory power that "states of the brain" don't have, even though the former are theoretically reducable to the latter.
  - vanniv 7y ago
    I think it is at this part of the debate where the ship of Theseus becomes interesting. The sequence of events in the brain are what make up the mind. But, if you replace the brain while keeping the sequence of events continuous, you have a new brain and the same mind. Or maybe just the same brain. Ship of Theseus and all that.
    - kerkeslager 7y ago
      > The sequence of events in the brain are what make up the mind. But, if you replace the brain while keeping the sequence of events continuous, you have a new brain and the same mind. Okay, but as far as I know, we've never replaced a brain while keeping the sequence of events continuous--I'm not even sure what actions one would take to do that.
      - vanniv 7y ago
        Oh, we definitely haven't yet. But the fact that we can't currently do so doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to the philosophical discussion of whether the mind is a separate entity from the brain. It seems likely to me, though, that we'll be able to really make progress on that question in the next century or so for this very reason.
kerkeslager 7y ago
Your argument falls apart where you claim something is abundantly clear, when you can't even clearly describe what you think is abundantly clear. You're claiming red light isn't the perception of red. I can be on board with those semantics, but they are just semantics. In that case, I'd say the phenomenon described by the terms is that red light is the electromagnetic radiation in the long range of the visible spectrum, and the perception of red is the chemical cascade starting with the stimulation of L-cones and ending with the firing of neurons in the visual cortex. You keep saying that red light and the perception of red are "highly correlated" with red, but I'm saying, there's no evidence for anything besides red light and the perception of red. You're saying that the brain and the mind are made up of qualitatively different material, but I'm saying, "qualitative" implies "observable", and you've yet to present an observable phenomenon that is clearly the mind. Either the mind is indistinguishable from the brain, in which case we don't need a second term for it, or it's a distinguishable phenomenon that you've failed to actually demonstrate exists. It's not clear which is the case, because you haven't made it clear what observable phenomena you are calling "the mind".
- aldoushuxley001 7y ago
  Is it not abundantly clear that a photon is just a photon? What else could it be? > the perception of red is the chemical cascade starting with the stimulation of L-cones and ending with the firing of neurons in the visual cortex. So this quote illustrates the gist of your thinking, but I think you've got some muddled terms. For you there is "red light" and "the perception of red". So for you: "red light" is the photon & "the perception of red" is the chemical cascade. Whereas, I would break it down as follows: "red light" is the photon as well - ie a photon with wavelength between 620-750nm (though I'd caution that despite calling this photon "red light", there is in fact no "red" associated with it - except that it can cause the perception of red if it hits and excites specific cone cells at back our eyes, but it is still just a photon, albiet with a specific energy level but the point is this photon has no quality "red") Where we differ is I believe: The chemical cascade is the chemical cascade & "the perception of red" is "the perception of red" So I think the real problem with your understanding of this is your confusing the chemical cascade caused by a 620-750nm photon to be "the perception of red". In a sense, you are claiming that this chemical cascade is 2 things: 1: a chemical cascade and 2: the perception of red (i.e. the subjective sensation of looking at red); whereas, I would say the chemical cascade is just a chemical cascade... that's all it is, because of course chemicals can't be chemicals AND sense perceptions - that's the real incorrect leap of faith in your argument. I believe it makes much more sense to consider sense perceptions to be a separate distinct phenomenon. You say that I have yet to present an observable phenomenon that is clearly in the mind, but just imagine a red triangle, boom there you have it - that red triangle only exists in the mind. Sure, in the brain there's electrochemical activity within the visual cortex, but you won't find a red triangle in there, because the red triangle is made up of fundamentally different material - i.e. the sense-perception of red in the shape of a triangle. Now, I have no idea what red actually is, except that I know it is a qualitatively different material than the brain and is fundamentally irreducible. If you still disagree with this, tell me where is the red triangle? Because I think it's patently absurd to say the red triangle IS a chemical cascade in your brain. No, it's not. It's highly correlated with a chemical cascade in your brain, but it is an objectively distinct and separate entity/object; it's simply made of qualitatively different material than the brain. Ultimately, as I said before, I believe you're confusing 2 correlated processes/things for a single process/thing: the chemical cascade and the sense-perception.
lanstin 7y ago
From the viewpoint of the mind, red is an illusion or perhaps a conventional way of organizing experiences. From the view point of the body, red is an emergent phenomena. Color is an interesting example because people literally don’t see colors that their languages do not differentiate: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/211213-sky-isnt-blue https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/21121...

mcguire 7y ago

"The mind is highly correlated with the brain but it is not the brain." ... in roughly the same way that a process is not a processor. Or a program, for that matter.

kerkeslager 7y ago
Okay, if you're saying that the mind is just the sequence of events occurring inside the brain, I certainly won't argue that the sequence of events doesn't exist. However, I don't think that's what most people mean when they say "mind", and using the word "mind" brings with it a lot of baggage, so I'd prefer to use a more descriptive term, like "sequence of events".
- mcguire 7y ago
  "Sequence of events", to me, doesn't capture the relationship between subsequent states of either the brain or the mind. Also, "states of mind" have an explanatory power that "states of the brain" don't have, even though the former are theoretically reducable to the latter.
- vanniv 7y ago
  I think it is at this part of the debate where the ship of Theseus becomes interesting. The sequence of events in the brain are what make up the mind. But, if you replace the brain while keeping the sequence of events continuous, you have a new brain and the same mind. Or maybe just the same brain. Ship of Theseus and all that.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > The sequence of events in the brain are what make up the mind. But, if you replace the brain while keeping the sequence of events continuous, you have a new brain and the same mind. Okay, but as far as I know, we've never replaced a brain while keeping the sequence of events continuous--I'm not even sure what actions one would take to do that.
    - vanniv 7y ago
      Oh, we definitely haven't yet. But the fact that we can't currently do so doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to the philosophical discussion of whether the mind is a separate entity from the brain. It seems likely to me, though, that we'll be able to really make progress on that question in the next century or so for this very reason.

kerkeslager 7y ago

Your argument falls apart where you claim something is abundantly clear, when you can't even clearly describe what you think is abundantly clear. You're claiming red light isn't the perception of red. I can be on board with those semantics, but they are just semantics. In that case, I'd say the phenomenon described by the terms is that red light is the electromagnetic radiation in the long range of the visible spectrum, and the perception of red is the chemical cascade starting with the stimulation of L-cones and ending with the firing of neurons in the visual cortex. You keep saying that red light and the perception of red are "highly correlated" with red, but I'm saying, there's no evidence for anything besides red light and the perception of red. You're saying that the brain and the mind are made up of qualitatively different material, but I'm saying, "qualitative" implies "observable", and you've yet to present an observable phenomenon that is clearly the mind. Either the mind is indistinguishable from the brain, in which case we don't need a second term for it, or it's a distinguishable phenomenon that you've failed to actually demonstrate exists. It's not clear which is the case, because you haven't made it clear what observable phenomena you are calling "the mind".

aldoushuxley001 7y ago
Is it not abundantly clear that a photon is just a photon? What else could it be? > the perception of red is the chemical cascade starting with the stimulation of L-cones and ending with the firing of neurons in the visual cortex. So this quote illustrates the gist of your thinking, but I think you've got some muddled terms. For you there is "red light" and "the perception of red". So for you: "red light" is the photon & "the perception of red" is the chemical cascade. Whereas, I would break it down as follows: "red light" is the photon as well - ie a photon with wavelength between 620-750nm (though I'd caution that despite calling this photon "red light", there is in fact no "red" associated with it - except that it can cause the perception of red if it hits and excites specific cone cells at back our eyes, but it is still just a photon, albiet with a specific energy level but the point is this photon has no quality "red") Where we differ is I believe: The chemical cascade is the chemical cascade & "the perception of red" is "the perception of red" So I think the real problem with your understanding of this is your confusing the chemical cascade caused by a 620-750nm photon to be "the perception of red". In a sense, you are claiming that this chemical cascade is 2 things: 1: a chemical cascade and 2: the perception of red (i.e. the subjective sensation of looking at red); whereas, I would say the chemical cascade is just a chemical cascade... that's all it is, because of course chemicals can't be chemicals AND sense perceptions - that's the real incorrect leap of faith in your argument. I believe it makes much more sense to consider sense perceptions to be a separate distinct phenomenon. You say that I have yet to present an observable phenomenon that is clearly in the mind, but just imagine a red triangle, boom there you have it - that red triangle only exists in the mind. Sure, in the brain there's electrochemical activity within the visual cortex, but you won't find a red triangle in there, because the red triangle is made up of fundamentally different material - i.e. the sense-perception of red in the shape of a triangle. Now, I have no idea what red actually is, except that I know it is a qualitatively different material than the brain and is fundamentally irreducible. If you still disagree with this, tell me where is the red triangle? Because I think it's patently absurd to say the red triangle IS a chemical cascade in your brain. No, it's not. It's highly correlated with a chemical cascade in your brain, but it is an objectively distinct and separate entity/object; it's simply made of qualitatively different material than the brain. Ultimately, as I said before, I believe you're confusing 2 correlated processes/things for a single process/thing: the chemical cascade and the sense-perception.

lanstin 7y ago

From the viewpoint of the mind, red is an illusion or perhaps a conventional way of organizing experiences. From the view point of the body, red is an emergent phenomena. Color is an interesting example because people literally don’t see colors that their languages do not differentiate: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/211213-sky-isnt-blue https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/21121...