Dualism - Mind vs. Brain

[My5tuff4u]

I'm trying to find out if our thoughts come from inside or outside my head, it's an interesting journey so far.

[Hufflewaffle]

You need to get to grips with the difference between objective knowledge and subjective experience. As soon as you start assigning objective values to subjective experience you are in trouble. Unfortunately this is what a lot of religious people seem to want to do.

[humansaretheworld]

Both mind and matter are objects and concepts of our consciousness. Matter is the

world as perceived thru our outer 5 senses and mind is perceived internally. Physicalism

ignores that which is doing the perceiving to avoid having a dualistic system. Everything

we think about and make judgements about are based upon on dualism so what is

the problem with a pair of opposites for mind/matter?  We have lite/dark, hot/cold, good/bad, is/is not, etc as needed for differentiating.

[1971SuperLead]

Has brain damage ever effected a persons ability to love or fear?

[TheConcolor]

@1971SuperLead Yes. Especially damages to the frontal lobe can change a persons capabilities of feeling certain emotions, and even radically change their personalities. Google it :)

[nightvidcole]

@1971SuperLead Quite profoundly, when the amygdala or other parts of the limbic system are damaged. It can also have an effect if certain parts of the prefrontal cortex are damaged.

[htg04]

brains have shape and may be touched. minds do not have shapes and may not be touched. it seems to follow that minds are immaterial just as ideas and logic are immaterial. Are the parts of a car a car if they are separated from each other? those are my simple thoughts anyway. I think they work together, but if not, fine, i still believe in a soul, even if it doesnt survive death.

[bananabread119]

WRONG!!! none-material CANNOT interact with material substance.

[Corvus133]

I find it funny the pro "Atheists" that claim to be controlled by their brain and have 0 choice (they indirectly suggest this) will say "My brain controls my actions." They place the word "my" before "brain" creating the very duality they whine doesn't exist. If your brain does everything, then it isn't "yours." "My chair" - this creates duality between the "self" and the 'chair' - if they were the same thing, you would just say "my" or 'chair."

[Druss1586]

@Corvus133 Interesting, I'm Agnostic and have a lot of Atheist friends. We used to struggle with concepts like this... "I am my mind, I am my body, I am sensation, I am emotion" ...etc. Some of us started practicing Insight Meditation and realized in fact that we just "are." Everything we perceive makes us who we are, although our essential property is thinking. However, this does not tie me to believe that "My brain controls my actions." Atheists probe, Christians whine. :)

[Bumblybee256]

@Corvus133 You can set yourself aside from your brain in order to talk about it, that's not hypocritical, it's something humans are able to do- it's a useful feature of the brain with some unfortunate consequences- like the illusion of a 'spirit realm'. It's simply self awareness. Your brain is an object you can refer to. It's also you.

[lazyawol]

Is this video trying to say that brain damage doesn't affect the mind? Because that is clearly bullshit!

[Keysteeze]

Many atheist appear convinced that consciousness originates from, and is reducible to only the workings of the brain. This is an unwarranted assumption. We do not yet know what the relationship between matter and consciousness actually is.

- Sam Harris, End of Faith, Pg. 235,

[MrBadham]

@Keysteeze First of all,you would have to prove a separation between matter and consciousness.I think the default position is that consciousness needs a brain.The brain is matter.You have never encountered a consciousness separate from a brain.In fact,you have never encountered Dog consciousness separate from Dog brain,or Human consciousness separate from Human Brain.Cats don't think like man,Dogs don't think like Chimps.It's not just something acting on our brains, it is the brain itself.

[fartwadpigfart]

@000SMITH000 How do you explain documented cases where people have esp and have the ability to remote view?  The military has even used these people. It shows abilities exist outside of our brains in the physical world.

[atlasshrugged2u]

Excellent, simple and true! well done.

[chigong980]

Think of it this way. If you have advanced dementia or alzheimer's, is it still you? At some point in the progression of certain diseases of the brain, I think it's entirely possible that we do lose the very thing that makes us who we are.

[AceofDlamonds]

If anyone has seen the movie "The Thing" it really delves deep into this issue if you know what I'm talking about......

[JAYDUBYAH29]

you are engaging in a standard "argument from ignorance" - just because we dont understand all of the details yet of brain and consciousness - and YOU understand way less of what is already actually understood, is not a good argument for dualism or supernturalism. study neuroscience.

[Wh3tst0nE]

chemicals.

[000SMITH000]

"Something to think about?" LOL...not really. There is absolutely 0 evidence for dualism. The brain producers thoughts and emotions. These thoughts and emotions DO NOT and CAN NOT exists on there own. They are simply products of a physical, functioning brain. There is no such thing as "dualism".

[ScaryKid1015]

@000SMITH000 i could name a number of examples to back up my point, but for brevity's sake, explain post brain death experience if such a dualism does not exist.

[alixamett]

@000SMITH000 "god is dead" but you cannot admit to the lie that the brain is all there is. For exampleI although painkillers can take away the pain that it cannot take away emotional pain. If i took a painkiller because my dad died and I was in pain that painkiller wouldnt do shit... there is a difference between emotional and physical pain.

and explain where matter comes from since it cannot come into existance by itselfe

and it cannot have simply existed there forever.

[imorio]

@alixamett Ok, prove matter can't come into existence. That it can't happen now in the circumstances we know of doesn't mean it can't come into existence at no time under no circumstances. And yes, there are drugs that take away emotional pain, they are anti-depression drugs...

[antipostmodernist]

@000SMITH000 So, as a physical object (and I assume that you feel physical objects to be the products of the brain), would the brain be the product of the brain?

[flagman57]

@antipostmodernist "you feel physical objects to be the products of the brain". What does that even mean?

[PerfectDecalibration]

@000SMITH000 I'm not sure how knowing that there is "absolutely 0 evidence" [which of course by that you mean scientific, documented, etc... most likely] is a reason to avoid approaching the topic. There was "absolutely 0 evidence" that other galaxies existed, yet that did not prevent its discovery. I think it's one thing to need evidence in order to confirm the existence of certain physical things... but something else to have an open mind to mysteries of life science hasn't yet proven.

[metaldude82]

@000SMITH000 No, the brain does not entirely produce thoughts and emotions. A person needs to have subjective experience in order for thoughts and such to manifest themselves through the brain.

[GodlessHippie]

i find a strange sarcasm in the questions asked by anti-science people like this.

He asks some valid questions about consciousness, mind, and brain. but the problem is, if somebody gave the current proven scientific theory to answer his questions; i feel that he would just scoff and say "prove it!" or "if you want to believe that". some people just dont know what the word science means. =(

[liberatedvialove]

"but the problem is, if somebody gave the current proven scientific theory to answer his questions"

The problem is it has not been answer yet and for that reason we question the validity of evolution.

[jmbcwebmaster]

Ahh, here in lies another issue, and no small one at that. Scientific theory can not be proven by definition of it being a theory. Theories can only be disproved. It is up for great debate if one should simply believe, or search for tangible proof through science, however scientific theories are not the answer for all things, and most certainly do not dispel "belief", or even discount "The Divine".

[Rubba0Band0Man]

Ok since you obviously have no clue, the actual scientific definition of the word THEORY is "A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena". In other words, theories are general principles to explain why facts occur. Such as the Gravitational theory. We know gravity exists, but we use this theory to explain how it works. It's the same with Evolution. Evolution DOES occur, the theory just offers an explanation for HOW and WHY it occurs.

[rcollinstotheface]

Not to mention in science the word theory does not mean the same as what the general public will use with it. In science theories are considered factual until disproven. The idea that cells are what are body is made up of is still known as Cell THEORY, and there is no way anyone can argue the validity of this finding.

[mtopper66]

Um, wrong. The other guy (jmbcwebmaster) was correct. Theories can only be disproved. Even the gravitational theory that you tout is *still* under debate by credible scientists to this day. It is commonly accepted as a theory for the "most likely" explanation for why things fall to earth, but like anything else it is still being rigorously tested. To assume that one knows the 100% "certainty" of anything is the height of ignorance.

[lookatmepleasesir]

@GodlessHippie so there are proven scientific theories which answer these questions? 

[MrWildbill20056]

@GodlessHippie Anti science? Given you actually used the term 'current proven scientific theory' I wonder what your own grasp of any scientific discipline is up to! There are several competing hypotheses for the emergence of consciousness, but it is, and was 2 years ago and has not changed since, the case that no one has given even a close proximation to an account of the 'hard problem of consciousness.'

Anti science is best exemplified by statements such as your own, which misrepresent it.

[olunda]

Is there any reason to think that there is a ghost in the mashine?

Just because it hasnt been explained in detail does'nt mean ANY guess is as good as those that are informed and supported by the avalable data.

[braino2000]

I think the brain really controls your body/actions more then your thoughts. Your thoughts would be the immaterial mind part. For example, someone with cereberal pulsy or however you spell it, can be perfectly sane and have regular thoughts and choices but may have spasms and speech problems due to brain issues.

[prer0gative]

In absolutely no way does olavka's example support dualism. If damage to the brain results in corresponding effcts on consciousness, this points to an entriely physical basis for consciousness.

Ironically, reflect7, YOUR example supports monism. Waves are phenomena of the *physical* world. They are not 'non-material', so your example of the television set is an analogy to a system explicable purely in physical terms.

[iNDIGOarts]

I personally dont think monism/physicalism requires the denial of the existence of sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires and so on. Its all a chemically induced experience that stimulates the brain, so its physical, and generally that affects the decision making process, which does seem to reflect in beliefs quite greatly. I would say that monism/physicalism would require the denial of free will though, since "free will" is governed by physical laws, and therefore isnt free at all.

[reflect7]

A belief in monism/physicalism requires that we deny the existence of things like sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and free choice since matter/materials themselves do not have these type of properties.

[prer0gative]

No, this is erroneous.

Sensations are produced by physical stimulation leading to physical effects, and thoughts, emotions, desires and beliefs are the result of brain and other physical processes, as, ultimately, is our experience of free choice.

Your assertions are without foundation, as is the notion that monist theories require the denial of these phenomena.

[zakiechan]

Could you give an example of any contemporary neurologist or philosopher of the mind that thinks that if the brain is all there is, emotions, thoughts, desires, etc don't exist (I will grant you that many don't think free will is possible, since it is mostly incoherent anyway)?

[thurstonite]

@reflect7 This is a classic example of the fallacy of composition - "because X is made of individual Y's, and each Y has a certain property, X must have this same property."

This is demonstrably false. You say that, since individual particles of matter don't have free will, a mind simply constructed of these particles also can't have free will. Let's apply the same reasoning to water: Individual molecules of water aren't wet, so water, comprised of many such molecules, also can't be wet. See?

[weedipikia]

@reflect7 I believe we could still have any of those things except free choice. How do you know we really have free choice though? If we didn't have free choice, how could you tell? What would be different?

[assilaneb1]

@reflect7 I myself find that a strict materialistic view of the mind can't fully explain the my mind like things like free choice, qualia, and self. I hold to a position called property dualism to explain the mind which says that the mind is an emergent reality from the complex neuronal processes in the brain. how this differs from materialism is theres no reductionism the mind is ontologically irreducible to the neuronal processes by is causally reducible to the brain seems pretty reasonable

[ultradevon04]

@reflect7 I think sensations, thoughts, emotions, desires, beliefs, and free choice are all products of the inner workings of the brain. There is no example of any of these things happening without a brain so i think they are just what the brain does. No need to have some mind or soul outside of the brain. We have never seen or experinced one.\

[thegodphreaker]

@reflect7 Wrong. Those all come from the brain. Which does physically exist.

[almostskater3210]

@reflect7

I think materialism just means that neural connections cause these things, not that they in themselves have "physical properties," but, then again, I suppose they do.

[reflect7]

I think your example still supports a physical brain along with a separate non-physical mind. The mind is the conscious part that manifests itself through the brain in a similar way that picture waves and sound waves manifest themselves through a television set. The waves are also non-material just like the mind, but if you damage the physical appliance (tv/brain), the the integrated system won't work.

[zakiechan]

Right, but when you cut a TV in half, you don't suddenly get two separate signals. However, when you cut a brain in half, you get two spheres of consciousness. Look up "V.S. Ramachandran (Clip 2)" on youtube.

The TV analogy also doesn't work, because signals are "physical", minds are not (how can the immaterial move the material?)

And are also left with the problem of "what is the point of the brain anyway?" If the mind controls the body, whats the deal with this huge, heavy blob in our heads?

[olavka]

There is a huge mountain of examples in psychology that answer this question. When different parts of the brain are destroyed, the corresponding parts of the individual are destroyed.

Good examples are people who get the connection between the facial recognition center and the emotional center severed. They recognize their old friends and relatives, but think they're really imposters because the expected emotional response never enters their conciousness.

[flashback1234]

yeah! that`s the living prove that God exists!!

[DvsPolak]

u cant prove that he exists or not,u can only believe what you want to believe

[ArchEnemy789]

Yeah, okay there Descartes...