6 ms·

>Starts with the assumption that brain / brain activity = conscious self. It's not assumption that there is nothing more to the mind than the material brain. T

>Starts with the assumption that brain / brain activity = conscious self. It's not assumption that there is nothing more to the mind than the material brain. This is based on very strong empirical evidence. We have about 100 years worth of Neuroscience. We also have fundamental physics and laws of chemistry. There is no reason or evidence to believe that something magical is happening in the brain, or that somehow particles which behave according to the laws of physics outside of the brain, somehow don't, when part of the brain. We have a very good understanding of all the fundamental forces that govern the physics of our everyday experience. > I just think this assumption ought to be challenged, rather than taken for granted Challenge it then. What is your reason to believe the laws of physics are broken in the brain or that the mind is more than the material brain? Is there even one shred of evidence for that?

aethertap 12y ago
I would just add that the mind probably is partially an outgrowth of the entire connected body system rather than just the brain in isolation. The feedbacks between the hormonal system, parasympathetic/sympathetic nervous system, and various other influences in the body have definite effects on the function of the mind, assuming that mind encompasses behavior. There's a fascinating course on this topic available from The Great Courses: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1597 http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.asp...
- macspoofing 12y ago
  That's an interesting theory. I could see how that could, in principle, be true. There's no reason why the neurons that make up our nervous system wouldn't play a part in creating the mind.
  - aethertap 12y ago
    This came up today and reminded me of this thread so I thought I'd post it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7957057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7957057
collyw 12y ago
>This is based on very strong empirical evidence. Could you point me to some of this evidence? Even the article says : We know that many different molecular processes are involved, but we still know little about which synapses are modified and when, and almost nothing about how to work backward from a neural connectivity diagram to the particular memories encoded. > What is your reason to believe the laws of physics are broken in the brain or that the mind is more than the material brain? Is there even one shred of evidence for that? I am not saying its breaking any laws of physics. As far as I am aware the laws of physics do not apply to the conscious. I can't observe it. I can't touch it. It doesn't seem to be a physical entity as far as I can deduce. Can you measure consciousness (I am not referring to brain activity)? Whats your reason for assuming that the conscious self is a result of the laws of physics?
- macspoofing 12y ago
  >but we still know little about which synapses are modified and when, and almost nothing about how to work backward from a neural connectivity diagram to the particular memories encoded. The article doesn't say what you think it says. We don't understand how consciousness works, but we're pretty confident that we can constrain the ultimate answer to being compatible with the known laws of physics. There's no good reason to believe anything otherwise. >As far as I am aware the laws of physics do not apply to the conscious. Woah. In what way? I'm not saying that we'll use the nomenclature and terminology of particle physics or field theory to describe consciousness when (if ever) we understand it, just like we don't when we explain how weather or even biological processes work, but it damn well better square with particle physics. >Whats your reason for assuming that the conscious self is a result of the laws of physics? It comes down to the following: The current fundamental physics are incredibly successful in modeling particle and field interactions in pretty much every domain we studied them under, certainly in every domain that we as humans interact with. Even though we may not understand how consciousness arises from a material brain, it is a huge leap in logic to segregate that particular domain and say that this one part of our world is not (in principle) explainable by our physics, because the laws of physics do not share that distinction. You have to have a very good reason to say that the most successful theory in the history of mankind is wrong about this point. Having said that, we know that consciousness is affected by our material brain. Heck, I can whack you over the head with a hammer, cause you brain damage which will then irrevocably change the way you perceive (or not perceive) the world. I can give you some drugs that can do the same. Neuroscience has been studying the brain and consciousness and there has been ZERO evidence to suggest that the consciousness is somehow separate from the material brain. We also know that we are a products of evolution, which means the brain and our consciousness is also the product of evolution. >I can't observe it. I can't touch it. It doesn't seem to be a physical entity as far as I can deduce. I think I see your hang up. Part of the problem with consciousness is that a) it is an ill-defined concept, b) it is subjective to individual brains, which makes us really biased observers of it and c) people don't really want to define it. You feel that it's there, but you can't define it, and it doesn't feel like it's part of our material universe. This is where you have to take a step back and accept the things we DO know are true, that is, our consciousness is a product of our material brains, and those brains are themselves the products of Evolution, and are made up of particles that follow well known and well tested laws of chemistry and physics. If we ever understand (or define!) consciousness, this picture is not going to change.

aethertap 12y ago

I would just add that the mind probably is partially an outgrowth of the entire connected body system rather than just the brain in isolation. The feedbacks between the hormonal system, parasympathetic/sympathetic nervous system, and various other influences in the body have definite effects on the function of the mind, assuming that mind encompasses behavior. There's a fascinating course on this topic available from The Great Courses: http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=1597 http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.asp...

macspoofing 12y ago
That's an interesting theory. I could see how that could, in principle, be true. There's no reason why the neurons that make up our nervous system wouldn't play a part in creating the mind.
- aethertap 12y ago
  This came up today and reminded me of this thread so I thought I'd post it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7957057 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7957057

collyw 12y ago

>This is based on very strong empirical evidence. Could you point me to some of this evidence? Even the article says : We know that many different molecular processes are involved, but we still know little about which synapses are modified and when, and almost nothing about how to work backward from a neural connectivity diagram to the particular memories encoded. > What is your reason to believe the laws of physics are broken in the brain or that the mind is more than the material brain? Is there even one shred of evidence for that? I am not saying its breaking any laws of physics. As far as I am aware the laws of physics do not apply to the conscious. I can't observe it. I can't touch it. It doesn't seem to be a physical entity as far as I can deduce. Can you measure consciousness (I am not referring to brain activity)? Whats your reason for assuming that the conscious self is a result of the laws of physics?

macspoofing 12y ago
>but we still know little about which synapses are modified and when, and almost nothing about how to work backward from a neural connectivity diagram to the particular memories encoded. The article doesn't say what you think it says. We don't understand how consciousness works, but we're pretty confident that we can constrain the ultimate answer to being compatible with the known laws of physics. There's no good reason to believe anything otherwise. >As far as I am aware the laws of physics do not apply to the conscious. Woah. In what way? I'm not saying that we'll use the nomenclature and terminology of particle physics or field theory to describe consciousness when (if ever) we understand it, just like we don't when we explain how weather or even biological processes work, but it damn well better square with particle physics. >Whats your reason for assuming that the conscious self is a result of the laws of physics? It comes down to the following: The current fundamental physics are incredibly successful in modeling particle and field interactions in pretty much every domain we studied them under, certainly in every domain that we as humans interact with. Even though we may not understand how consciousness arises from a material brain, it is a huge leap in logic to segregate that particular domain and say that this one part of our world is not (in principle) explainable by our physics, because the laws of physics do not share that distinction. You have to have a very good reason to say that the most successful theory in the history of mankind is wrong about this point. Having said that, we know that consciousness is affected by our material brain. Heck, I can whack you over the head with a hammer, cause you brain damage which will then irrevocably change the way you perceive (or not perceive) the world. I can give you some drugs that can do the same. Neuroscience has been studying the brain and consciousness and there has been ZERO evidence to suggest that the consciousness is somehow separate from the material brain. We also know that we are a products of evolution, which means the brain and our consciousness is also the product of evolution. >I can't observe it. I can't touch it. It doesn't seem to be a physical entity as far as I can deduce. I think I see your hang up. Part of the problem with consciousness is that a) it is an ill-defined concept, b) it is subjective to individual brains, which makes us really biased observers of it and c) people don't really want to define it. You feel that it's there, but you can't define it, and it doesn't feel like it's part of our material universe. This is where you have to take a step back and accept the things we DO know are true, that is, our consciousness is a product of our material brains, and those brains are themselves the products of Evolution, and are made up of particles that follow well known and well tested laws of chemistry and physics. If we ever understand (or define!) consciousness, this picture is not going to change.