11 ms·

'The mind is the brain' -- his very first premise is a controversial assumption, one that's a long way from being universally accepted. Without that assumption

'The mind is the brain' -- his very first premise is a controversial assumption, one that's a long way from being universally accepted. Without that assumption, the rest of his argument falls apart. There are many people, myself included, who think that while there is a connection between mind and brain (the brain clearly has a causal impact on the mind), the two are not the same. I'm being quite brief here. I have done a lot of thinking, and even writing (this was a big part of my PhD) about this, and let me just say that there is a lot of room to reasonably disagree with Sean Carroll. His view is just one in the marketplace, and is certainly no more (and possibly less!) scientifically robust than the alternatives.

wruza 5y ago
Sorry for stupid questions, so what’s there and is it worth it? Also, do you think that “mind” part is singular or plural, per universe? If plural, where do they come from? Where is the mind science central, is there a site or a starter kit?
- Winsaucerer 5y ago
  I've mentioned the names of a handful to some others, but quickly again: various types of dualism (substance and property), monist views like George Berkeley's idealism, and non-reductive physicalism. I mention above that Sean Carroll is diving into philosophical questions here. If you'd like to learn more, then depending on your expertise, you could look up more on philosophy of mind -- there's a lot of literature. There are also scientific investigations that may be of relevance to these questions to, such as near death experiences, out of body experiences, that sort of thing. I don't think that those sorts of experiences actually would settle the discussion either way, but they are interesting and relevant nonetheless. I haven't watched the video that this HN article is about yet. When you mention singular or plural, are you asking if I think there's just one mind or many in our universe? My own personal view, I think there are many minds in our universe (is that what you were asking?). I lean towards an idealist view similar to, but not the same as, George Berkeley's. One where mind/mental is the fundamental substance, and the physical world exists on top of that mental substrate. Mine is a pretty uncommon view though. Most people are physicalists of some sort or dualists, I think.
fivea 5y ago
> 'The mind is the brain' -- his very first premise is a controversial assumption, one that's a long way from being universally accepted. Without that assumption, the rest of his argument falls apart. You wrote a rather lengthy post saying you disagree, mixed with an empty appeal to authority, but you provided no counterpoint or evidence or rationale or hypothesis refuting or contradicting the assertion that the mind is the brain. If the mind is not the brain then what is it, then?
- Winsaucerer 5y ago
  I would not have considered my post lengthy by any stretch. Sean Carroll offered nothing in that short video other than an assertion that the mind is the brain, and then some consequences that follow from that raw assertion. I have done no worse than him. As for what the mind might be if it is not the brain, that is not a short discussion. As a pointer, take a look at various substance or property dualist views, or monist views such as that of George Berkeley.
- MadcapJake 5y ago
  > If the mind is not the brain then what is it, then? We have no external experience so we have no way to truly know the answer. Could the brain be a conduit for some external interface for each mind? Could the brain be an interface for some larger shared mind? Could the brain be a vessel that carries the mind while the brain is alive? Could the brain be a figment of the mind? Just because science can't yet describe subjective post-death experiences doesn't mean they don't occur. That being said, I'm personally in the rational constructivist camp wherein I think that our mental "scaffolding" obscures our ability to be objective when we try to reason about this. Though I am hopeful we find some answers someday!
skywal_l 5y ago
What are those alternatives? I believe the common scientific consensus is that of classic materialism: mind is a process supported by the body's matter. There are probably alternative theories indeed but they are at the fringes. For example, what are the repeatable experiments that would prove that the mind exists outside the body? They've been billions of experiments now were people body disappear and the mind never came back. Unless you believe in spiritism which is far from being an accepted scientific theory.
- Winsaucerer 5y ago
  Alternatives include substance and property dualism, and monism such as that put forward by George Berkeley. In the materialist camp, besides identity theory (where mind = brain), there are also non-reductive physicalists, though I think that's a poor alternative. Although Sean Carroll is a scientist, his claim that mind = body is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. I would not be surprised if most scientists are identity theorists or similar when it comes to these questions, but that's more a product of (a) science community culture and (b) the fact that science covers a group of methods to try to answer questions about the material world. There are questions worth asking, and worth trying to answer, that are not scientific questions and not amenable to investigation via scientific methodologies. Those might be mathematical (is there any rational number that is the square root of two?) or logical (e.g., whether to accept S5 modal logic), or other philosophical questions (does God exist? do the objects of mathematics exist?). Scientists may find themselves thinking about these question, may have strong opinions about some of them (as indeed Sean Carroll does), but these are not scientific questions. Many of the interesting questions about the relation between mind and body are for now philosophical (with some overlap with science -- e.g., finding out ways in which the brain can affect the mind). On that point, I don't see the relevance of the fact (if indeed it is a fact) that billions of bodies have disappeared without a mind ever coming back. Suppose that someone thinks that brain and mind are not identical -- why would they expect the mind to come back once the body disappears?
- jrue 5y ago
  I like to keep an open mind about these things. But they tend to be metaphysical arguments based on asking lots of questions and just pondering the issue, rather than on testable empiricism. If there is no physical test to prove the point, then it would equally valid for me to say we’re all video game characters, or living in a dream, or conjure up innumerable scenarios, no matter how ridiculous they could all be equally valid. It’s not scientific if it can’t be tested at some level through reproducible experiment. The point Carroll is making is that the atoms in our brain don’t magically float away after we die, and there is no scientific model that would allow that to happen, even through currently unexplained phenomena (like dark matter or weakly interacting particles). It’s an argumentative fallacy to simply say we don’t know what we don’t know, therefore anything is possible. Rather than on what we currently do know.
ykevinator2 5y ago
You can't just make stuff up, there is no room to disagree. "Because it is compatible with my religion and is comforting" is not intellectual thought.
- Winsaucerer 5y ago
  I agree, Sean Carroll shouldn't just make stuff up. > "Because it is compatible with my religion and is comforting" is not intellectual thought I think you replied to the wrong person. I never said anything remotely close to this.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

wruza 5y ago

Sorry for stupid questions, so what’s there and is it worth it? Also, do you think that “mind” part is singular or plural, per universe? If plural, where do they come from? Where is the mind science central, is there a site or a starter kit?

Winsaucerer 5y ago
I've mentioned the names of a handful to some others, but quickly again: various types of dualism (substance and property), monist views like George Berkeley's idealism, and non-reductive physicalism. I mention above that Sean Carroll is diving into philosophical questions here. If you'd like to learn more, then depending on your expertise, you could look up more on philosophy of mind -- there's a lot of literature. There are also scientific investigations that may be of relevance to these questions to, such as near death experiences, out of body experiences, that sort of thing. I don't think that those sorts of experiences actually would settle the discussion either way, but they are interesting and relevant nonetheless. I haven't watched the video that this HN article is about yet. When you mention singular or plural, are you asking if I think there's just one mind or many in our universe? My own personal view, I think there are many minds in our universe (is that what you were asking?). I lean towards an idealist view similar to, but not the same as, George Berkeley's. One where mind/mental is the fundamental substance, and the physical world exists on top of that mental substrate. Mine is a pretty uncommon view though. Most people are physicalists of some sort or dualists, I think.

fivea 5y ago

> 'The mind is the brain' -- his very first premise is a controversial assumption, one that's a long way from being universally accepted. Without that assumption, the rest of his argument falls apart. You wrote a rather lengthy post saying you disagree, mixed with an empty appeal to authority, but you provided no counterpoint or evidence or rationale or hypothesis refuting or contradicting the assertion that the mind is the brain. If the mind is not the brain then what is it, then?

Winsaucerer 5y ago
I would not have considered my post lengthy by any stretch. Sean Carroll offered nothing in that short video other than an assertion that the mind is the brain, and then some consequences that follow from that raw assertion. I have done no worse than him. As for what the mind might be if it is not the brain, that is not a short discussion. As a pointer, take a look at various substance or property dualist views, or monist views such as that of George Berkeley.
MadcapJake 5y ago
> If the mind is not the brain then what is it, then? We have no external experience so we have no way to truly know the answer. Could the brain be a conduit for some external interface for each mind? Could the brain be an interface for some larger shared mind? Could the brain be a vessel that carries the mind while the brain is alive? Could the brain be a figment of the mind? Just because science can't yet describe subjective post-death experiences doesn't mean they don't occur. That being said, I'm personally in the rational constructivist camp wherein I think that our mental "scaffolding" obscures our ability to be objective when we try to reason about this. Though I am hopeful we find some answers someday!

skywal_l 5y ago

What are those alternatives? I believe the common scientific consensus is that of classic materialism: mind is a process supported by the body's matter. There are probably alternative theories indeed but they are at the fringes. For example, what are the repeatable experiments that would prove that the mind exists outside the body? They've been billions of experiments now were people body disappear and the mind never came back. Unless you believe in spiritism which is far from being an accepted scientific theory.

Winsaucerer 5y ago
Alternatives include substance and property dualism, and monism such as that put forward by George Berkeley. In the materialist camp, besides identity theory (where mind = brain), there are also non-reductive physicalists, though I think that's a poor alternative. Although Sean Carroll is a scientist, his claim that mind = body is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. I would not be surprised if most scientists are identity theorists or similar when it comes to these questions, but that's more a product of (a) science community culture and (b) the fact that science covers a group of methods to try to answer questions about the material world. There are questions worth asking, and worth trying to answer, that are not scientific questions and not amenable to investigation via scientific methodologies. Those might be mathematical (is there any rational number that is the square root of two?) or logical (e.g., whether to accept S5 modal logic), or other philosophical questions (does God exist? do the objects of mathematics exist?). Scientists may find themselves thinking about these question, may have strong opinions about some of them (as indeed Sean Carroll does), but these are not scientific questions. Many of the interesting questions about the relation between mind and body are for now philosophical (with some overlap with science -- e.g., finding out ways in which the brain can affect the mind). On that point, I don't see the relevance of the fact (if indeed it is a fact) that billions of bodies have disappeared without a mind ever coming back. Suppose that someone thinks that brain and mind are not identical -- why would they expect the mind to come back once the body disappears?
jrue 5y ago
I like to keep an open mind about these things. But they tend to be metaphysical arguments based on asking lots of questions and just pondering the issue, rather than on testable empiricism. If there is no physical test to prove the point, then it would equally valid for me to say we’re all video game characters, or living in a dream, or conjure up innumerable scenarios, no matter how ridiculous they could all be equally valid. It’s not scientific if it can’t be tested at some level through reproducible experiment. The point Carroll is making is that the atoms in our brain don’t magically float away after we die, and there is no scientific model that would allow that to happen, even through currently unexplained phenomena (like dark matter or weakly interacting particles). It’s an argumentative fallacy to simply say we don’t know what we don’t know, therefore anything is possible. Rather than on what we currently do know.

ykevinator2 5y ago

You can't just make stuff up, there is no room to disagree. "Because it is compatible with my religion and is comforting" is not intellectual thought.

Winsaucerer 5y ago
I agree, Sean Carroll shouldn't just make stuff up. > "Because it is compatible with my religion and is comforting" is not intellectual thought I think you replied to the wrong person. I never said anything remotely close to this.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]