Does the mind influence the brain?

[JetLeg]

Does the mind influence the brain?

An argument for this is that studies like

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/24/brain_blunder_warning_hat/

can be interpreted to lead to the conclusion that it does.


Two arguments against it are

1) When we think in general terms "the mind influences the brain", we are okay with the idea. But if the mind influences the brain, it has to influence it in a _specific_ place. So actually, when the mind influences the brain, it means that the mind influences the movements of molecules... Or of atoms... Or the firing of neurons.

So it means that the brain is different from other physical systems. Other physical systems are influenced by physical objects only. (Unless we believe in telekynesis). If the brain is influenced by the mind, then it should be evidenced in the behaviour of the brain. There should be some physical entities that behave _differently_ in the brain that they do in contexts other than the brain -> the influence of the mind should be measurable.

In other words, if the mind influences the brain, that should be measured not only in the macro-level, but also at the micro-level. But it is not. The brain behaves just like any other physical system, without any special observations that would allow us to deduce that it is influenced by the mind.


2) A rebuttal to the argument for : The linked study can be interpreted to support epiphenomenalism as well as the idea that the mind influences the brain.

Look at

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Dualism.png


The idea that the mind influences the brain seems to correspond to what is called in the link "interactionist dualism". However, one can give an explanatino to the study in terms of epiphenomenalism (see picture).

One can argue that certain sound waves cause the brain to to supress areas responsible for judgement making. AND those sound waves cause the mind to behave in certain ways. The brain causes changes in the brain AND in the mind, NOT that the mind causes changes in the brain.


--------------------------
--------------------------

Do you have other arguments in favor or against? Do you have rebuttals to any of the argument? Do you think I should explain more clearly any of the arguments above?

[godless dave]

I would phrase it as some parts of the brain influence the brain.

[Piscivore]

1) When we think in general terms "the mind influences the brain", we are okay with the idea.
Not me. Strike that, reverse it. The "mind" is another word for the activity of the brain. It is not a thing, it is an event. Like fire.

ETA: There's not a single mention in that article of "mind", let alone it "influencing" anything.

[JetLeg]

I would phrase it as some parts of the brain influence the brain.

Okay, if I understand you correctly, it is what I say in argument (2).

[JoeTheJuggler]

We know that a lot of learning is the selective reinforcement of synapses. That is, the ones that are used are strengthened, and the ones that are not degrade. (You might need to learn the basics of how neurons work to understand the details of this process.)

That's one way.

On the other thread I told you about neuroscience experiments that show that the organization of the primary visual cortex depends on the experience of seeing. (This involved cells dividing, differentiating and migrating, plus the establishment and selection of synapses.)

I have no problem with the idea that the mind influences the brain. On the other thread, I've been using the analogy that the mind is to the brain as running is to the legs. (I like this one, because I'm a runner.) The way the mind influences the brain is similar to the way running influences my legs.

Recall again that in neuroscience what you're calling "the mind" is a collection of various mental processes.

[paximperium]

Define "mind" and what is it?
Can it exist without a brain?

[JoeTheJuggler]

The "mind" is another word for the activity of the brain. It is not a thing, it is an event. Like fire.

Or like running! ;)

I think this thread is a spin off of ideas JL is trying to assert on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137228&page=15).

I suspect the argument he's wanting to make is that if the mind influences the brain that it must be a "logically separate entity" and not merely a function or emergent property of the brain.

[JoeTheJuggler]

In other words, if the mind influences the brain, that should be measured not only in the macro-level, but also at the micro-level. But it is not.

On the other thread, JL, you admitted that your knowledge of biology and science in general is extremely limited.

What makes you confident to assert that there are no detectable physiological and anatomical changes in the brain due to the mind (i.e. mental functions such as learning, sensory processing, memory, etc.)?

Other physical systems are influenced by physical objects only.
Wrong. Running and exercise are not physical objects but rather activities or functions, yet they can have profound effects on anatomy.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Define "mind" and what is it?
Can it exist without a brain?Shuuuuuurrre it can. :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Not me. Strike that, reverse it. The "mind" is another word for the activity of the brain. It is not a thing, it is an event. Like fire.

Exactly. "The mind" is just a term to describe certain (though not all) activities of the brain. So do certain activities of the brain influence the brain? I'd say it's a no-brainer.

[JoeTheJuggler]

JetLeg, on the other thread, you've heard me mention several times fMRI. Do you know what this is and how it works?

It can give us moving pictures (video) of the activity in the brain. It makes use of magnetic resonance imagining to image changes in blood flow that corresponds to neural activity in the brain. In other words, doing certain mental tasks causes neural activity in certain areas and structures in the brain which is measurable by changes in blood flow.

When you do different mental tasks, characteristic fMRIs result. This can be seen at larger and smaller levels.

And this is a pretty accessible article (http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/05.html) about brain evolution and development.

You could also search terms like "synapse plasticity" or "synapse reinforcement" and get lots of more advanced articles like this one (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V10-4PYGVTP-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3ead434b99976f81ebdc4797e0141fec). If you're going to assert that these things don't happen, it's up to you to learn about them first.

Here's some more explanation (http://www.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/plomdevelop/development/september.html) about the development of the primary visual cortex (something I've mentioned several times. From this article (my highlighting):
In humans and other mammals, the number of synapses increases dramatically after birth. The specificity of neuronal connections is then refined during early postnatal life. Experimental data have shown conclusively that neuronal activity is critical for the elaboration of synaptic territories, as well as for making proper synaptic connections.

ETA: To translate a little: "neuronal activity" means using the activity--actually getting action potentials from the light-sensitive cells of the retina through afferent fibers into the primary visual cortex. In other words, "neuronal activity" is another way of saying "the mind"--just that "the mind" is a collection of many different types of mental activities. Visual processing is one of them.

[sphenisc]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/677048.stm

[Mercutio]

If it is brain activity (or, better, if it is brain activity and other bodily behaviors), it is effect, not cause. Can one effect affect another effect? Logically, how does one distinguish this from one cause having more than one effect?

[Jeff Corey]

Simple, it's the Law of Effect.

[The Man]

Well what of a brain unaffected by ‘the mind’, I think there is a clinical term for that. Still some, it would seem, limit the effects of their minds on their brains. Like our muscles our brains improve with use, ‘the mind’ is simply the brain in use. So use it or lose it, it’s up to you.

[JoeTheJuggler]

If it is brain activity (or, better, if it is brain activity and other bodily behaviors), it is effect, not cause. Can one effect affect another effect?

Yes. Running is the result of muscle contractions in the legs (and associated neural activity). Yet consistent running will have an effect on the legs (more muscle mass, more vascular tissue) and other parts of the body.

Similarly, the function of the brain (what we collectively refer to as "the mind") can affect the structure of the brain. Certain synapses are strengthened, others degrade and so on.

[JoeTheJuggler]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/677048.stm

Another very good example.

(This was also mentioned on the PBS program I told you about, JL.)

[Mercutio]

Yes. Running is the result of muscle contractions in the legs (and associated neural activity).Actually, no. Running is muscle contractions and associated yadda yadda, not the result of same. The result of same is getting from point A to point B.
Yet consistent running will have an effect on the legs (more muscle mass, more vascular tissue) and other parts of the body.
Brain activity has an effect on brain activity. Not a big surprise. Does the result of brain activity have an effect on brain activity?

Similarly, the function of the brain (what we collectively refer to as "the mind") can affect the structure of the brain. Certain synapses are strengthened, others degrade and so on.
Who is this "we" you speak of, Kemosabe? I am in the minority on this forum in that I do not accept this definition, but rather a more comprehensive behavioral definition.

Oh... in truth, I thought the question in the OP was completely different than your comments here. I thought "mind influences brain" was intended to look more short term, but here you are making the more simple claim that short-term X activity influences long-term X activity. Not terribly interesting.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, no. Running is muscle contractions and associated yadda yadda, not the result of same. The result of same is getting from point A to point B.
I disagree. I can contract my leg muscles in a great many different ways without running.


Brain activity has an effect on brain activity. Not a big surprise. Does the result of brain activity have an effect on brain activity?
I think his question is does the mind (a collection of mental processes which in many cases can be equated to brain activity) have an effect on the brain.

In the other thread I described a cool experiment that was demonstrated on PBS's Science Frontiers. The subject is put in a big chair in a way that his entire visual field is a big screen. The screen shows a pattern of vertical stripes of one color with superimposes horizontal stripes of a different color. Normally, it looks like a sort of a plaid pattern. The subject, however, is wearing goggles that have one color filter on the right eye, and the other color on the left eye. The result is that one eye can only see the horizontal stripes and one eye can only see the vertical stripes. What happens subjectively is that the person sees only on or the other at a time. For example, he'll see the horizontal stripes for 8 seconds and then it "flips" and he sees only the vertical stripes. Nothing has changed except his subjective experience of what he's seeing.

With a sophisticated sort of EEG scanner, scientists can identify by the scan when the subject is seeing which. This is "mind" influencing the brain.


Oh... in truth, I thought the question in the OP was completely different than your comments here. I thought "mind influences brain" was intended to look more short term, but here you are making the more simple claim that short-term X activity influences long-term X activity. Not terribly interesting.
I think it goes beyond that, although that in itself is pretty interesting (especially in light of what JetLeg is trying to argue for). As mentioned there's the development of the brain, reorganization of the brain following trauma, and even the possibility, for example, that someone who really works at memory ends up with a larger hippocampus. (As for example in the study on the London cab drivers.)

[CurtC]

A few months ago I was listening to the Discovery Institute's podcast, and Casey Luskin of the DI was interviewing two guests, Michael Egnor and Jeffrey Schwarz (sp?).

The topic was something like this, and Egnor and Schwarz kept asserting that the observed phenomenon of neuroplasticity (the brain physically changing as a result of mental activity) is solid proof of dualism, that the mind is something other than a result of material processes. However, they just asserted this, and never explained how they arrived at this conclusion. I was completely lost as to how they arrived at it, but they just kept asserting it like it was the plainest thing anyone had ever said.

Sort of like the OP here. Of course, the activity of the material brain can have physical effects on it. What on earth are you thinking to say that it can't?

[JetLeg]

Or like running! ;)

I think this thread is a spin off of ideas JL is trying to assert on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137228&page=15).

I suspect the argument he's wanting to make is that if the mind influences the brain that it must be a "logically separate entity" and not merely a function or emergent property of the brain.



Joe, why accuse me of dishonesty ?

It is not a "spin off", and you could have just asked me why I post this.

If the mind influences the brain then it probably is a logically separate entity, true. But the issue is that I think that it doesn't. I think it is the brain that influences both the brain and the mind. And you could actually see that I think this in the thread you linked to. However, during the thread that you linked to, I was surprised that someone here (Hans) actually thinks that the mind influences the brain. So I posted a new thread to find out if more people here think this and why.

"Spin off". Yeah, right.

[JetLeg]

And another reason why the term "spin off" is wrong is because I do not have any hidden agenda... Nor I do not have a very strong motivation to convince anyone of the truth of my views. It would be nice (after all, I think I am right), but I don't have any personal gain from it. It is not that I think that if one believes in my position in the thread that you linked to, one is going to get benefits after death.

[JetLeg]

If it is brain activity (or, better, if it is brain activity and other bodily behaviors), it is effect, not cause. Can one effect affect another effect? Logically, how does one distinguish this from one cause having more than one effect?


What do you refer by "it" in the first sentence?

[JetLeg]

Actually, no. Running is muscle contractions and associated yadda yadda, not the result of same. The result of same is getting from point A to point B.

I also disagree. Running is not contractions. Running is a high-level view. Contractions is a low-level view. So running is a higher-level view of contractions. Not an effect, not the same.

[Belz...]

Does the mind influence the brain?

What's a "mind" ?

[Belz...]

Not me. Strike that, reverse it. The "mind" is another word for the activity of the brain. It is not a thing, it is an event. Like fire.

More like "running". Fire is soot.

[Mercutio]

[snip]This is "mind" influencing the brain.

This sentence is a nonseq. There is absolutely nothing in your description that justifies it; it is an assertion (whether it is your own or the researchers). They were, after all, not measuring mind, they were measuring brain. That two measures of brain activity (eeg and self-report) are correlated is no big news.

[aggle-rithm]

But if the mind influences the brain, it has to influence it in a _specific_ place.


Why?


So it means that the brain is different from other physical systems.

It is. It's more complex than other physical systems.

There's nothing wrong with that. SOMETHING has to be more complex.

[aggle-rithm]

It is not that I think that if one believes in my position in the thread that you linked to, one is going to get benefits after death.

This is Religion and Philosophy. Discussions about life insurance belong in Economics, Business, and Finance.

[HansMustermann]

JL, I gave you some very specific examples in the other thread. Among them, let's look at just one:

Person X loves person Y. You show X a photo of Y, and you can actually measure chemical changes in their system and certain lobes firing up on their MRI. Now X and Y have a fight and split up. You show X the same photo of Y, and now you can see a whole different set of lobes (e.g., those associated with pain) firing up in their brain.

A. Do you agree that the experience of looking at that photo is subjective? (If it were an objective stimulus, and the brain is objective according to your own axioms, then it should produce the same result. It obviously doesn't.)

B. Do you, therefore, agree that, by your own axioms, interpreting the photo and the resulting mental associations are the domain of the subjective mind, not of the objective brain?

C. Does the experiment not show that stuff happens (e.g., chemical mediators are released) in the physical brain as a result of that mental evaluation?

D. How _do_ you explain that, to maintain that view of a neat one-way street from the brain to the mind?

Does the brain also evaluate the photo on its own, and know what mediators to release when the mind reaches conclusions like "ow, seeing her hurts"? How can an objective brain reach the same subjective conclusion as the subjective mind? And why would one need a separate mind, if the brain reaches the exact same conclusions anyway?

[JoeTheJuggler]

This sentence is a nonseq. There is absolutely nothing in your description that justifies it; it is an assertion (whether it is your own or the researchers). They were, after all, not measuring mind, they were measuring brain. That two measures of brain activity (eeg and self-report) are correlated is no big news.

I have two responses, first, if the phenomenon called "mind" is not the collection of various mental processes (memory, visual processing, etc.) that can be linked with neuronal activity, then what is it?

And second, partly based on the other Jetleg thread, that subjective experience and measures of brain activity are correlated is right to the point.

And finally, in the OP of this thread, Jetleg asserts that thinking (and he did use the term "thinking" in just the same way he used "mind" in the thread title) does not show up as any measurable change in the brain on a microscopic level. this is simply contrary to fact.

[HansMustermann]

But to also adress the OP, that "debunking" seems... sub-par to me, to put it mildly.

What causes that disconnecting of that brain structure isn't merely sound, it's the subjective decision to trust that person. If you tell the same people "this guy is a con trying to swindle you of your money, try to spot the fallacy in his arguments", that brain slice turning off will not happen any more. Same sounds, different effect.

So I'll ask you the same questions as for that people-in-love experiemtn again:

A) Do you agree that the apparent trustworthiness of a person is a subjective thing, not an objective one? (E.g., I wouldn't trust Uri Geller as far as I could throw him, but some people obviously trusted him a lot.)

B) Do you agree therefore that such an "I trust this guy" decision is the domain of the subjective mind, not the objective brain?

C) Does the experiment not show that the change in brain activity is caused by that decision to trust that person?

D) How do you explain that consistently with the postulates of epiphenomenalism?

Note that even if you want to reverse the causality at point C, and say that actually the turning off of that brain process caused the trust... then you're effectively saying that the objective brain decided to trust that person. I.e., that the objective brain just did a subjective decision for you.

[JetLeg]

Person X loves person Y. You show X a photo of Y, and you can actually measure chemical changes in their system and certain lobes firing up on their MRI. Now X and Y have a fight and split up. You show X the same photo of Y, and now you can see a whole different set of lobes (e.g., those associated with pain) firing up in their brain.



http://www.sprymag.com/features/chemical_romance.php

I am posting the link so others have access to it to.

Do you have a link to the scientific article?

[JetLeg]

Hans, I don't agree with assumption A in your posts.

Hans :


A. Do you agree that the experience of looking at that photo is subjective? (If it were an objective stimulus, and the brain is objective according to your own axioms, then it should produce the same result. It obviously doesn't.)



No. Between the two expirements X and Y had a fight and split up. This is encoded in the brain, which is objective. The brain processes information differently before and after the fight.

If you tell the same people "this guy is a con trying to swindle you of your money, try to spot the fallacy in his arguments", that brain slice turning off will not happen any more. Same sounds, different effect.

Why assume that the brain processes just the sounds? Probably the brain processes also the meanings of the words. And since the meanings are different, the brain processes them differently.

----------------

Please lets not turn this to a debate just between me and you. One of the reasons I started this thread, was that I realized your position is contradictory to the position of most of the people here, and I would love to see you debate them.

[Simon39759]

The mind is the brain, well, part of it, at least.

So, part of the brain affecting the brain is hardly surprising...

[Piscivore]

More like "running". Fire is soot.

Soot is a product of fire, what the event does to the fuel. It is not fire. But running is a good analogy too.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Hans, I don't agree with assumption A in your posts.

In that case, what about the vertical and horizontal line experiment I mentioned a few times now?

Surely the only change is the subjective experience (the person sees either the horizontal or the vertical), and it correlates with a measurable change in the brain.

There's also the more long-term brain changes that I've mentioned associated with brain development and organization and brain changes due to learning.

ETA: Or continue with Hans' approach, but where he said "looking at" change it to "seeing"--that is the subjective experience of seeing the photo.

[JetLeg]

In that case, what about the vertical and horizontal line experiment I mentioned a few times now?

Surely the only change is the subjective experience (the person sees either the horizontal or the vertical), and it correlates with a measurable change in the brain.

There's also the more long-term brain changes that I've mentioned associated with brain development and organization and brain changes due to learning.

ETA: Or continue with Hans' approach, but where he said "looking at" change it to "seeing"--that is the subjective experience of seeing the photo.


Can you relink to the study?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you relink to the study?

Which one?

Someone else gave a link on this thread about the taxi-driver learning study (and changes in the hippocampus).

The vertical/horizontal stripe one was just described in that episode of Science Frontiers I mentioned. That story was the second from the last on this page. (http://www.pbs.org/saf/1302/video/watchonline.htm) The first one on that page is fascinating too. It talks about the frontal lobes as the seat of personality.

ETA: Here's a PDF (http://www.nsi.edu/uploads/pdf/ScientificReport.pdf)summarizing a lot of the work done at the Neurosciences Institute (the place mentioned in that Science Frontiers story).

[HansMustermann]

Hans, I don't agree with assumption A in your posts.

Hans :



No. Between the two expirements X and Y had a fight and split up. This is encoded in the brain, which is objective. The brain processes information differently before and after the fight.

Why assume that the brain processes just the sounds? Probably the brain processes also the meanings of the words. And since the meanings are different, the brain processes them differently.

That was the correct answer, actually.

Ok, so then such experiences as fights, love, trust, friendship, etc, become objective data in the brain, right? And since a lot of your decisions are based on stuff you tried as a kid and it hurt a lot, pain would also become an objective piece of data, right? I mean, you see the brain as an objective and public thing, so anything it deals with (if I understood your argument right) would also have to be objective and public.

Please lets not turn this to a debate just between me and you. One of the reasons I started this thread, was that I realized your position is contradictory to the position of most of the people here, and I would love to see you debate them.

Actually, as far as I can tell, my position is the exact same as Joe's and RandFan's at least. I _don't_ think that the mind is a separate entity, and I see no reason why it would be. I think the mind is just a process or function of the brain, just like timekeeping is a process or function of the watch, or like running a program is a process or function of the computer.

All I was doing here was going for a reductio ad absurdum. It seemed to me like you want to draw a hard line between them and make the relationship a one-way street, so, wth, I can start from there with the ad absurdum :D

[Beerina]

Does the mind influence the brain?

Before getting into that, I'd like to point out that it must influence the physical brain. Otherwise it wouldn't have evolved, probably as a cheat-like shortcut to aid the complexity of decision-making when compared to still more thinking built into the brain as a zombie-like real-world "thinking" processor.

Think about that. (And yet another idea I've heaved out I've never heard of before that might make a good jumping point for a paper.)



An argument for this is that studies like

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/24/brain_blunder_warning_hat/

can be interpreted to lead to the conclusion that it does.


Two arguments against it are

1) When we think in general terms "the mind influences the brain", we are okay with the idea. But if the mind influences the brain, it has to influence it in a _specific_ place. So actually, when the mind influences the brain, it means that the mind influences the movements of molecules... Or of atoms... Or the firing of neurons.

Correct. The subjective perceptual phenomenon we call "consciousness" must be able to put the results of its situational analysis back into action in the brain. Of course consciousness, being a real phenomenon, must therefore have a real explanation in physics, although obviously at least some extensions are needed (which is a well-known issue with the theory and definition of physics) and in any case, it's very poorly understood at the moment. "Wildly guessed at" is a better description.

Interestingly, Francis Crick (http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html), of DNA fame, and his friend, want to skip all the guessing and just jump directly into discovering the NCCs, the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. The argument is it's mostly a waste of time to argue these issues until we fully understand what's going on in the brain as the mind is conscious. Only then could we really start making decent guesses as to what's really going on. And the technological time is ripe for starting this.


So it means that the brain is different from other physical systems. Other physical systems are influenced by physical objects only.

Right here is where most philosophizing breaks down. We treat it as if it's some kind of wild dualism, the second of which exists in a separate kind of reality that is also divorced from causality such that something can possibly exist that operates in a manner that is neither deterministic, nor deterministic with random influences. Yet nobody can conceive of what this might be -- they just presume it exists.

It is up to those who claim it does to prove it, either with examples (which don't exist) or with sound science and logic, which not only don't exist, but, as currently stands, argue strongly against the reality of such things. Hence the common religious apologist's claims about "mysterious are the ways of God" and "there are things Man was not meant to know," both of which cover everything from consciousness to why God lets babies be tortured and raped to death.

I.e. they're two meaningless phrases that actually mean "Ya, that is an impossible argument, but I refuse to acknowledge the veracity of it, lest it impugn my mental model of reality."

So consciousness exists (I think; therefore I am) and it must have the property of being validly punishable, but this punishment must affect something other than a deterministic neural processor to be "ethical". Although, given the purpose of punishment and reward are to deter or encourage behavior in the context of a mind considering options, I don't see how this conflicts with determinism whatsoever. In fact, a deterministic brain requires knowledge to function better, including possible results of actions it's planning.




(Unless we believe in telekynesis some other system that exists, has no root in physics of any kind, and operates outside the jejune plane of reality consisting of pdeterminism with randomness).

Fixed it for you :)



If the brain is influenced by the mind, then it should be evidenced in the behaviour of the brain. There should be some physical entities that behave _differently_ in the brain that they do in contexts other than the brain -> the influence of the mind should be measurable.

Yep! That's Crick's, et al., argument. And a prediction of something the time is ripe for searching for.


In other words, if the mind influences the brain, that should be measured not only in the macro-level, but also at the micro-level. But it is not.

Bzzzzt! Epic fail. That's the whole point of the paper -- the technology is only just now starting to be remotely viable for such investigations.


The second argument is just another dualist argument, which, of course, is an ages-old point on which religion chokes, because it is presuming there must be something that preserves their concept of ethical culpability, which, as I have mentioned, cannot possibly exist, and has not been remotely shown to, and the actual science about it shows it does not because the whole concept is meaningless (could a system exist that's separate from determinism or determinism + true ransom influences?)


What people think of as some other plane of reality in which minds exist is just the leftovers from old philosophy. In reality, it's just more physics. Perhaps a radical extension to our own, or perhaps not. But nothing special.


Indeed, this mysterious world, which would house every mind from humans to God Hisself's, would have its own physics, and bam! You're back to ground zero. It's turtles all the way down.

So whether it's a minor extension to physics, or a complete break with physics as we know it, it still has the curious property of actually existing and interacting with physics-as-we-know-it, and therefore can be explained by science eventually.

[Beerina]

By the way, when we understand what's going on in the NCC during consciousness, we can then decide "how much" remaining work, if any, needs to be looked for "elsewhere", whatever "elsewhere" means, and used with a grain of salt.

[Mercutio]

Before getting into that, I'd like to point out that it must influence the physical brain. Otherwise it wouldn't have evolved, probably as a cheat-like shortcut to aid the complexity of decision-making when compared to still more thinking built into the brain as a zombie-like real-world "thinking" processor.
[snip]

Excellent April Fool's Day post.

[Mercutio]

I disagree. I can contract my leg muscles in a great many different ways without running.
Can you run without contracting your leg muscles?

[Mercutio]

I also disagree. Running is not contractions. Running is a high-level view. Contractions is a low-level view. So running is a higher-level view of contractions. Not an effect, not the same.

Neither reductionism nor [whatever the opposite of reductionism is] are causal analyses. Reducing, say, the biology of nerve impulses to the neurochemistry of nerve impulses does not explain the cause of said impulses, merely the mechanism.

You are making the same point I was; if "mind" is brain activity, then you have the same thing as cause and as effect. Again, one measure (eeg) of brain activity is correlated with another (self-report). Just as muscle contractions are correlated with running. A low-level view is correlated with a high-level view; they are two views of the same thing, and not a separate causal entity and a caused result.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you run without contracting your leg muscles?
No. But it doesn't follow that running is the same thing as contracting my leg muscles. I also can't drive my car without gas in the tank, but that doesn't mean that gas in the tank is the same thing as driving my car.

Anyway, the distinction between running and contracting leg muscles isn't significant to this discussion. Contracting the leg muscles does indeed have an effect on the leg muscle (and the bones and the ligaments and the joints and the neuro-muscular junctions and so on). That is using the anatomy does indeed have an effect on the anatomy.

In the OP, JL says that "thinking" does not have an effect on the brain.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, why accuse me of dishonesty ?
Where did I do that?


It is not a "spin off", and you could have just asked me why I post this.
Yes it is. The overlap between the conversation on the thread "materealism and morality" and this one is substantial.


However, during the thread that you linked to, I was surprised that someone here (Hans) actually thinks that the mind influences the brain.
Your surprise is probably related to your ignorance of neuroscience. What Hans has been saying is completely consistent.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Mercutio, can you answer this question?

if the phenomenon called "mind" is not the collection of various mental processes (memory, visual processing, etc.) that can be linked with neuronal activity, then what is it?
_____________

Also, nice post, Beerina. (The long one.)

[JetLeg]

So, I understand most of you think that the mind _can_ influence the body?

I am surprised. I thought people here would be epiphenomenalists. However, as far as I understand you are interactionists -> you think that the mind can influence the brain. Only you think that the mind is in itself an emergent property/higher view of the brain. A proper name for your position would be interactionist materialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dualism.png
In the link for example, your position is missing.

Did I get your position right?

[RandFan]

So, I understand most of you think that the mind _can_ influence the body?If by mind you mean brain activity then, well, yeah.

I am surprised. I thought people here would be epiphenomenalists. If the sound that an internal combusing engine makes is an epiphenomenon then the sound likely has little if any effect on the engine.

However, as far as I understand you are interactionists -> you think that the mind can influence the brain. Only you think that the mind is in itself an emergent property/higher view of the brain. A proper name for your position would be interactionist materialism. What we experience as "mind" is, in part, the result of feedback loops in the brain. What we sense and experience as our mind might not in fact alter our brain but the underlying actions that give rise to the illusion of consciousness do.

See Why consciousness only exists when you look for it (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/ns02.htm) by Blackmore.

The problem you are interjecting is likely one of definition and understanding of precisely what is meant by "mind" which I would propose is not as tightly defined as you might think. In fact most people here don't really accept that a mind is anything other than what the brain does.

[HansMustermann]

So, I understand most of you think that the mind _can_ influence the body?

JL, did you ever get an idea like, say, to go have a walk in the park? How do you think your leg muscles started contracting? Pretty logically there must be some way for that idea to get from your mind to the neurons that control those muscles.

[JetLeg]

JL, did you ever get an idea like, say, to go have a walk in the park? How do you think your leg muscles started contracting? Pretty logically there must be some way for that idea to get from your mind to the neurons that control those muscles.

Well, the fact that it seems that the muscle contractions are caused by the idea can be an illusions.

I think that neurons caused this idea, and they also caused other movements of neurons, which caused muscle contractions.

I explained why, in the OP. If the mind influences the brain, it means that parapsychological phenomena are happening in the brain. But they don't.

[RandFan]

If the mind influences the brain, it means that parapsychological phenomena are happening in the brain. But they don't."parapsychological"? Isn't that ESP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology). If so then you are begging the question.

I think you are using the word "mind" in a slippery fashion here. I think you need to be more careful. I would again refer you to Blackmore's article.

By mind, most of us think of the activity of the brain. One of those activities could be described as epiphenomena. The same events that give rise to the epiphenomena (also the mind) can also change the brain.

[HansMustermann]

Well, the fact that it seems that the muscle contractions are caused by the idea can be an illusions.

I think that neurons caused this idea, and they also caused other movements of neurons, which caused muscle contractions.

You do realize that by now you're fully contradicting your original position, don't you?

_If_ everything private/subjective/etc were in the mind, how can non-private/objective/etc neurons process them? You said that your pain is subjective and neurons are objective, so pain must be in the mind not the brain. But you have decisions taken based on pain. (e.g., "I'll take a break now because my eyes hurt.") And now you give neurons and generally the physical non-subjective brain the task of making that decision. How can that be?

I explained why, in the OP. If the mind influences the brain, it means that parapsychological phenomena are happening in the brain. But they don't.

See RandFan's answer about that. If you're willing to accept demonstrations based on stuff like ESP, we might as well go full monte and introduce magic, elves and dragons too ;)

But even this particular fallacy still suffers from the exact same problem as before.

Let's say that through clairvoyance you see that you're about to be run over by a truck. Let's also say that clairvoyance happens in the mind not the brain. If the mind can't influence the neurons, then it would follow that you can't act upon that information in any way, no? You couldn't jump out of the way, because in your model there's no way for that stuff to get out of the mind and actually trigger the neurons that command your muscles.

Let's say your particular flavour of woowoo ESP is telepathy. Imagine telling someone to write something down. If such ESP happens in the mind not the brain, and the mind can't influence the body... then they can't write it down, no?

Or notice how you earlier moved all decisions in the brain. So then you could never take a decision based on something you learned by ESP, no? Because in your model, that information can't come back from the "mind" to the "brain" which actually does such decisions. You couldn't even feel glad or sad about that stuff (even if, say, you learn by ESP that a truck ran over your whole family) because again that's a decision you earlier moved to the brain.

ETA: Or think of that disembodied-mind experiment you must have proposed half a dozen times in the other thread. If it's the mind which sees that card on the shelf, how can he tell it to the guy conducting that experiment? The lungs and mouth and larynx are controlled by some neurons. If the mind can't influence those neurons in any way, then he wouldn't be able to talk about what his mind saw, no?

So even that woowoo-based "proof" is still internally inconsistent.

I'm thinking you'll have to come up with a better model.

[Jeff Corey]

I find it interesting that the intro psych text we use gets along perfectly well without using the term "mind".

[JoeTheJuggler]

I find it interesting that the intro psych text we use gets along perfectly well without using the term "mind".

Yep. Also, as I've been telling JL for a while, neuroscience usually talks about more specific processes rather than "mind" as well (memory, language, pattern recognition, etc.--and even usually more specifically than these I've mentioned).

I think the best definition of "mind" is that it's a collective term that refers to all these mental processes. (Psychology is the study of behavior, so it's not surprising that there's no need for it to consider a construct like "mind".)

[JoeTheJuggler]

ETA: Or think of that disembodied-mind experiment you must have proposed half a dozen times in the other thread. If it's the mind which sees that card on the shelf, how can he tell it to the guy conducting that experiment?

This reminds me (sort of tangentially) of something I heard for the first time on a JREF forum. As a response to the notion that "I" or the "self" is an entity that rides around in the body just behind the eyes: if that's an accurate way of thinking of it, wouldn't "I" be able to see better if I gouged out these eyes that are in the way? ;)

[HansMustermann]

ROFL, Joe. Nice way to put it.

[JetLeg]

So, I understand most of you think that the mind _can_ influence the body?

I am surprised. I thought people here would be epiphenomenalists. However, as far as I understand you are interactionists -> you think that the mind can influence the brain. Only you think that the mind is in itself an emergent property/higher view of the brain. A proper name for your position would be interactionist materialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dualism.png
In the link for example, your position is missing.

Did I get your position right?

So, did I get your position right?

[HansMustermann]

Actually, no, you got my position wrong. I'm actually thinking that all 3 diagrams are the kind of nonsense that happens when you go around pulling axioms out of the rear end, instead of accepting reality for what it is. Unfortunately, some philosophers never got past pulling axioms out of the hat.

Mind is a process. It's what those neurons do. Same as clocks and timekeeping, legs and running, wings and flying, eyes and sight, computers and running programs, hand and clapping, etc.

Sure, you can go and ask yourself "does timekeeping affect the clock", and even draw the same diagrams there. But that's taking that concept one step too far. Timekeeping isn't a different _entity_, it's a process. It's what the clock does.

"Timekeeping" is just an abstract name we gave that concept, so we can mentally operate with it at a higher level. Just giving it a name doesn't create an actual entity there which you can put on an equal footing with the clock and draw interaction diagrams between them.

At the end of the day, all that remains is that the clock affects the clock. Timekeeping is just that process of the clock affecting itself.

Same for the mind. What really happens there is that the brain affects the brain. The "mind" is just an abstract name that we gave that process.

[Dymanic]

Mind is a process. It's what those neurons do. Same as clocks and timekeeping, legs and running, wings and flying, eyes and sight, computers and running programs, hand and clapping, etc.It's called "teleofunctionalism".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am surprised. I thought people here would be epiphenomenalists.
I might be, if I could come up with a plausible story about how we could evolve to speak of phenomenal experience when it has no effect on the brain. It seems like it would either be an incredible coincidence that our speech matches our experience, or, more likely, our speech about it has no relation whatsoever to the experience---we are speaking nonsense about our experience.*

I guess the only way to make sense of it is to assume that some third party is producing both our speech and our experience.

~~ Paul

* In which case, there is no reason to suppose we have any experience at all.

[HansMustermann]

It's called "teleofunctionalism".

Well, some kind or another of functionalism, at the very least.

[JetLeg]

I guess the only way to make sense of it is to assume that some third party is producing both our speech and our experience.



Actually, it was thought about. By someone called Malbranch, I think. The third entity was of course god...

[JetLeg]

But even this particular fallacy still suffers from the exact same problem as before.

Let's say that through clairvoyance you see that you're about to be run over by a truck. Let's also say that clairvoyance happens in the mind not the brain. If the mind can't influence the neurons, then it would follow that you can't act upon that information in any way, no? You couldn't jump out of the way, because in your model there's no way for that stuff to get out of the mind and actually trigger the neurons that command your muscles.

Let's say your particular flavour of woowoo ESP is telepathy. Imagine telling someone to write something down. If such ESP happens in the mind not the brain, and the mind can't influence the body... then they can't write it down, no?

Or notice how you earlier moved all decisions in the brain. So then you could never take a decision based on something you learned by ESP, no? Because in your model, that information can't come back from the "mind" to the "brain" which actually does such decisions. You couldn't even feel glad or sad about that stuff (even if, say, you learn by ESP that a truck ran over your whole family) because again that's a decision you earlier moved to the brain.

ETA: Or think of that disembodied-mind experiment you must have proposed half a dozen times in the other thread. If it's the mind which sees that card on the shelf, how can he tell it to the guy conducting that experiment? The lungs and mouth and larynx are controlled by some neurons. If the mind can't influence those neurons in any way, then he wouldn't be able to talk about what his mind saw, no?

So even that woowoo-based "proof" is still internally inconsistent.

I'm thinking you'll have to come up with a better model.


You missed my point.

Imagine that the mind would influence the bending of a spoon. The spoon wouldn't act according to physical laws then, right? It should bend without a physical force causing it.

The same would be if the mind would cause changes in the brain. If it would happen, then some things in the brain would happen without a physical cause causing them. It doesn't happen, ergo the mind doesn't cause changes in the brain.

[RandFan]

You missed my point.

Imagine that the mind would influence the bending of a spoon. The spoon wouldn't act according to physical laws then, right? It should bend without a physical force causing it.



The same would be if the mind would cause changes in the brain. If it would happen, then some things in the brain would happen without a physical cause causing them. It doesn't happen, ergo the mind doesn't cause changes in the brain.You are begging the question and you are not reading what I'm writing nor have you red the link I gave you from Blackmore. You are esentially arguing against a position that does not exist.

The "mind" is what the brain does and not simply what we perceive of as "mind".
What we think of as "mind" is the result of feed back loops in the brain.
It is the underlying processes that give rise to consciousness that change the brain.
Your argument is fatally flawed in that your underlying assumption is wrong.

[HansMustermann]

The same would be if the mind would cause changes in the brain. If it would happen, then some things in the brain would happen without a physical cause causing them. It doesn't happen, ergo the mind doesn't cause changes in the brain.

Yep, RandFan said it. That's a fine example of begging the question.

[Dymanic]

Well, some kind or another of functionalism, at the very least.
Teleofunctionalism "puts the function back into functionalism". The hands on a clock go round and round, and they do so with a high degree of regularity, but they do not merely do that; they do so in order to tell the time. The teleological aspect is important.

What really happens there is that the brain affects the brain. The "mind" is just an abstract name that we gave that process.I agree. If you accept one definition of mind: "a pattern seen by a mind" (which happens to be my personal favorite), and if you accept that one function (teleofunction, that is) of the human brain is to recognize and respond to patterns, then why should the proposition that the brain can recognize and respond to its own patterns seem controversial?

[CurtC]

The same would be if the mind would cause changes in the brain. If it would happen, then some things in the brain would happen without a physical cause causing them. It doesn't happen, ergo the mind doesn't cause changes in the brain.

I agree with RandFan here. You are working with a different definition of the word "mind" from everyone else here. You seem to be basing your argument on the premise that the mind is separate from the physical, while the rest of us see the mind as just a word we use for what the physical brain does while it's operating normally. From our point of view, of course the mind, which is a set of processes of physical objects, can have physical effects.

I think, from your point of view, you're saying that a dualist version of the word "mind," which has no connection to the physical world, therefore can't have physical effects. Well, sure, that's our own argument against the idea of dualism.

[HansMustermann]

Teleofunctionalism "puts the function back into functionalism". The hands on a clock go round and round, and they do so with a high degree of regularity, but they do not merely do that; they do so in order to tell the time. The teleological aspect is important.

True, but I think that's one level too far for this particular thread, though. I'll worry about the distinction between teleofunctionalism and machine functionalism when we get that far. So far our friend JL has been arguing for two threads that functionalism as a whole can't be true.

[Old Bob]

If I could add a bit, brain does the work. Mind can reach out (remote view, dowse, etc)Our minds are connected to every living cell, ever where. Example, butchered some chocks for our neighbour. as each chock got the axe the other chocks reacted, they were shielded from the event yet the others jumped and protested as the axe hit. A flock of birds and fish all turn together as if they are one. Now we get to the spirit within us having a human experience, in a type of coma it may be but still acts through the mind not the brain. Not all mediums are frauds,some really do converse with the spirits of passed over people because the mind does not die, it is not organic. Dowsing is a type of remote viewing, projecting one's mind out to sense what lays under the ground, in spite of disbelief from many I know it works because I am a dowser.

[Dymanic]

If I could add a bit, brain does the work. Mind can reach out (remote view, dowse, etc)Our minds are connected to every living cell, ever where. Example, butchered some chocks for our neighbour. as each chock got the axe the other chocks reacted, they were shielded from the event yet the others jumped and protested as the axe hit. A flock of birds and fish all turn together as if they are one. Now we get to the spirit within us having a human experience, in a type of coma it may be but still acts through the mind not the brain. Not all mediums are frauds,some really do converse with the spirits of passed over people because the mind does not die, it is not organic. Dowsing is a type of remote viewing, projecting one's mind out to sense what lays under the ground, in spite of disbelief from many I know it works because I am a dowser.
If this is parody, it's pretty damn funny. (If not, it's rather sad).

[JetLeg]

I agree with RandFan here. You are working with a different definition of the word "mind" from everyone else here. You seem to be basing your argument on the premise that the mind is separate from the physical, while the rest of us see the mind as just a word we use for what the physical brain does while it's operating normally. From our point of view, of course the mind, which is a set of processes of physical objects, can have physical effects.

I think, from your point of view, you're saying that a dualist version of the word "mind," which has no connection to the physical world, therefore can't have physical effects. Well, sure, that's our own argument against the idea of dualism.


Ok, thanks. You are right. I am working from a different assumption. And RandFan showed it. The whole OP was written from dualist positions.

Well... To me functionalism makes no sense at all. But I tried to explain why
in "Materialism and morality thread", and wasn't successful at convincing others...

[aggle-rithm]

Well... To me functionalism makes no sense at all. But I tried to explain why
in "Materialism and morality thread", and wasn't successful at convincing others...

It's because the brain can't self-reference, so it naturally creates the illusion that the operation of the brain (the mind) is a separate entity.

[JetLeg]

It's because the brain can't self-reference, so it naturally creates the illusion that the operation of the brain (the mind) is a separate entity.

What do you mean by a "separate entity"? I was using this word in my other thread, but it seems you mean something different by it.

I like both of your signatures very much.

[Frank Newgent]

It's because the brain can't self-reference, so it naturally creates the illusion that the operation of the brain (the mind) is a separate entity.
http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF094-Freaking_Vortex.gif