Mind from Matter

I don't know why you would be bothered by the idea of willing and perceiving, unless you are mocking me, which is, of course, a possibility. These are things that minds do. I use the word "perceive" to separate it from sense impressions. We see physically; we perceive intellectually. We perceive that our equation is correct. We perceive that our poem is aesthetically satisfying. We may of course be mistaken in such perceptions.To will is to intend to do something, even if that willing is fanciful or purely mental. I will that I will stop drinking. I will that I will find a way to communicate with others. To will is speculate about the future.Thoughts are events, but they are rather special events, which separate them from physical events or things. Thoughts are always about something, which can not be said of physical activities. A rock lying in the yard does not mean anything (presumably)unless we, with a thought, invest it with meaning. This rock should not be in my yard.
Now it has a meaning, a subjective meaning, to be sure, but still a meaning.What does mind mean?To really get it in a clear sense, let's concentrate on pictures in the mind. I have a picture in my mind of a house that no longer exists. I used to live there. I can wave my mental camera all through this house, going from room to room. I can see it my mind.That's a mental image. Now where is this mental image? Is it in my brain? You could search the brain with a special brain-telescope and never find it.How big is this image? How many inches long? How wide is it?Is it stationary or moving? If moving, what is its velocity?How much does it weigh?I think it is obvious that such questions do not apply to mental images. So what is this image made of? Brainstuff?No, it's in a different world entirely. It does not exist in space. Can it be said to "exist" at all? If something does not exist in a physical sense, can it exist in another way? It can exist in the sense that I did not make it up as a pretend image--I really have that image in my mind. It is real in the sense that I actually imagined it.I come to the conclusion that there are two worlds--the mental and the physical. How can this be? A complicated pattern of electrical impulses produces a mental image--a picture that is not physical?

Why isn't a complicated pattern of electrical impulses just as physical as a stone?There is every reason to think that the mind is an emergent property of the complex interactions in the brain.With current technology we can watch memories being laid down and recalled. We can watch speech being formed before it is uttered. We see the different parts of the brain that take impulses from the eyes and pick out signels that we turn into vertical lines, horizontal lines, color and so on until out brain perceives an image.There is one heck of a lot to learn about the mind but there is nothing yet to require that it be separated from those myriad of interconnections in the brain.It is, very roughly, like those pictures that are made up of many little photos of things. They are 'montaged' together and when you step back there is a big image there. However, if you look closely there isn't "really" an image there at all. Just a lot of little photos pasted together. The big picture (so to speak ) is an emergent property that our mind sees in the sum of all the little bits.Our mind appears to be just the same kind of thing. If you take the brain apart cell by cell none of it is a bit of mind. But when you step back from the entire assemblage there is a mind there. Our concsiouness and "higher" functions seem to be mostly localized in the frontal lobes. Vision in the occipital (back of head). However, it is the sum of all that makes up "me". But there is no "me" in any one part of it.

RR,I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my purpose. Usually the admins make people flesh out their opening posts before promoting topics; however, in this case, they didn't.I didn't want to assume anything about your views on mind, as many people here have different views. Plus, only after I hear more about your thoughts can I respond in a way that tries to use 'your own words.'Anyway, thanks for doing that. I'll read your post again, and I'll do my best to explain what I can, and to point out the flaws in my thinking and yours. I'll get back to you on it in a bit. It takes some time to think and to write it out.Thanks again, and sorry for making you think I might be pulling your chain. I just wanted to hear more of your own ideas. Next time, feel free to ask me questions as well, if you're not sure where I'm coming from. I'll try to do a better job being clearer as well.Ben

"Why isn't a complicated pattern of electrical impulses just as physical as a stone?"It most certainly is physical. That's the point.Your explanation of the holistic, indivisible nature of "mind" reinforces the idea that mind is something quite different from "brain."Therein lies the mystery.

quote:

---

Your explanation of the holistic, indivisible nature of "mind" reinforces the idea that mind is something quite different from "brain."

​

Therein lies the mystery.

---

But, I can't reverse an ommelette back to the eggs and milk of which it is composed. Does this mean that "ommeletteness" is mysterious and numinous? Not at all - but it is precisely this degree of qualitative chnaged that it is referred to as an emergent phenomenon.

Nosyned said, "If you take the brain apart cell by cell none of it is a bit of mind."I don't get your analogy. If you take an egg apart cell by cell none of it is a bit of omelette?

quote:

---

I don't get your analogy. If you take an egg apart cell by cell none of it is a bit of omelette?

---

Rather, if you take an omellette apart none of it is egg. Sure the came compounds and whatnot are there, but their bonds have been torn apart and re-linked in different ways. The point is that a raw egg shares no meaningful properties with an ommellette, and there is nothing about the egg that implies "ommeletteness". An omellete, despite being composed of egg, does not in any way behave like a raw egg. It doesn't pour, wont hatch, does not have a hard surface. Short of spectroscopy, you'd have a hard time identifying an egg as the origin of an omelette if you didn't know how one was produced from the other.That is why it is not unreasonable to say that the properties of the brain as a whole are not necessarily reducible to the proprties of its consitituents. The process of putting them together may change it into something that behaves in a radically different way, regardless of whether or not it has a basic commonality in terms of atomic constituency.

quote:

---

To really get it in a clear sense, let's concentrate on pictures in the mind. I have a picture in my mind of a house that no longer exists. I used to live there. I can wave my mental camera all through this house, going from room to room. I can see it my mind.

​

That's a mental image. Now where is this mental image? Is it in my brain? You could search the brain with a special brain-telescope and never find it.

---

What if we could download memories so that they could be shared between individuals? This has been a plot device in many a scifi story, much like your idea of downloading your mind into a computer. Would this then mean that memories are a physical phenomena that CAN be broken down into individual neurons firing in a specific order?How about comparing a "mental image" to a "photographic image". A photograph is, at it's essence, a bunch of dots created by the reaction of chemicals to light (much like our retina). The human mind creates an image from those tiny dots. In the same way, could a mental image be the same process, the interpretation of a pattern of active neurons to form a picture? After all, what difference does it make if the picture comes from the nerves in the retina or the nerves in other parts of the brain? Are the nerve impulses from your memory centers qualitatively different than the nerve impulses from your retina? I would say NO.

omelette--mind
egg, milk,etc.--brainIf you chop the omelette up you can't find "egg."If you chop the mind up--but you can't chop the mind up.I guess that's the question. If you can chop the mind up, then it would have to be physical.Mentality, if it exists, would, I think, have to be indivisible.No, that's not right.All we can say is that if it is divisible it is physical. According to the analogy, if you COULD chop the mind up, you would not find any brain. What would you find instead? It's not like the omelette is not made out of anything. What is the mind made out of? "Mindness" doesn't seem adequate as a description, even though "omeletteness" is adequate because we know what that is, a cooked mixture of stirred egg, cream, etc.Can we define "mindness" as a cooked mixture of stirred brain parts?

quote:

---

Can we define "mindness" as a cooked mixture of stirred brain parts?

---

In a way, yes. The brain is a collection of neuronal cells. The activity of those cells in different combinations results in the mind. In the same way, an omelette is a mixture of different parts with none of those parts being an omelette on their own. An omelette is a sum of it's parts, as is the mind. Is an omelette something intrinsically different than the parts it is made from? Not really. I see the division between the brain and mind in a similar fashion.

Would you say that mentality is an illusion?

quote:

---

Would you say that mentality is an illusion?

---

Good question. I would say that "mentality" needs verification. The mind can be fooled into "seeing things" or percieving things that aren't there. This is the basis of science, verification of one's perception by the perception of others.I also look at mind altering drugs as evidence that the mind is something physical. LSD, for example, can make you see things that aren't there. LSD is a chemical, it is not some etheral force floating between the magic realms of thought and reality. Prozac and other drugs can alter our emotions. Chemicals released by the endocrine glands and the brain itself can alter perception and emotion. Drugs can cure people of neurlogocial diseases that include halucinations or delusion, such as schizophrenia. If the mind is a product of the brain, then altering the function of the brain should affect the mind. Psychotropic drugs seem to fulfill this hypothesis.

quote:

---

I would like to ask you if you can explain what you mean by a person or identity. What is it that you experience that makes you think so?

---

By person or identity, I mean, what makes me, me, and you, you. Our very identity.Living is what makes me believe what I do. I have an identity that is more than just a brain.

southerngurl So if your brain was removed from your body and you were given over to life support would your identity remain? I do not mean to sound condescending but the fact that alterations of the brain can alter your sense of identity indicate that such is just not the case.

No, you would kill my processer, I would no longer process any information, and thus "I" would be the same as dead.This message has been edited by southerngurl, 12-11-2004 06:10 PM