It's all the rage in neurobiology to claim that the brain (matter) is all there is, and that the mind doesn't exist. I'd like to make a dissenting comment or two.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'You can’t deny that your mind exists. After all, the very act of denying requires the ability to form thoughts, which seems to be a mental ability—so denying that you have a mind would amount to proving that you do! What’s unclear, however, is just what it means to have a mind.We know that we have brains,
which are purely physical objects." [1.]
- Let's take a look at this statement to see if it makes any sense. Let's change one word... 'we know that a computer is a purely physical object.' Now; does that claim make any sense? I don't think so; and I don't think the claim about the brain makes any sense. What is a purely physical object? We could define it as an object that has recieved no human input, had no intelligent intervention in its structure or shape let's say. I don't think the brain is an object that hasn't recieved any intelligent intervention. I think the brain is a creation of an intelligence. (In a way similar to software; it's a product of coding.) The brain is an 'object' created by intelligence, for a purpose, and to perform certain functions. To fail to understand this, is to forever be unable to understand the mind.
Brain and mind are very different things in the sense matter and information are very different things. To understand mind we need to understand the concept of information. We might call mind the information embedded in the matter of the brain. (In this case; specified and complex information.) Information is both separate from and dependent upon matter. (How god, or the mind of god, can exist without matter I don't know. I see the question of god's existence as beyond human ability to comprehend.)
Summary; It's my opinion that human beings are only conscious because they were designed to be so; that this could not have happened via some chemical accident.
Notes;
1. 60 Second Philosopher - Andrew Pessin/ch. 4.
- I was surprised to see that this book [of daily meditations] wasn't more popular. I suspect this was because the author was too demanding of his readers. I hope to rectify his mistake with my new book 'Philosophy in 60 seconds a week :=)
2. to pretend the mind doesn't exist is like pretending software doesn't exist. (We were designed to think, act and respond in certain ways. The bible claims that this 'programming' has gone wrong in some way; that man no longer the same as in the original creation.)
- I might add here that no one who has read the bible carefully, and as intended, can doubt that the creation (including man) has changed from its state in the original creation. Creationists may have taught an unchanging creation, but this wasn't biblical. (Since the books of the bible weren't written to satisfy man's fallen curiosity, the details aren't given to us.)
3. I don't see anything wrong with using terms like spirit (soul, etc.) to represent the information we see in genetic code. (There is after all nothing we can see or touch in information itself. We can think of information as immaterial.) I see it (at least) as an intuition that there's more to living organisms than mere matter. (I admit to liking the term informed matter... which I seem to recall someone using to describe Aristotle's take on Plato's forms.) Terms like spirit gave people a way to talk about a very real phenomenon while the genetic code was unknown. It (spirit) respected human experience, while the philosopher friendly (and Rationalist) idea of materialism discounted human experience.
4. The idea the brain is all there is... and that there is no mind, is as foolish a notion as claiming a computer is only hardware. The observation that brain is just matter completely misses the point.
5. To claim that thoughts can be boiled down to the firing of neurotransmitters is like saying a book can be boiled down to paper and ink. Neuro-biologists fail to understand the concept of information.
6. People who claim that religious experience can be boiled down to a brain malfunction (eg. Susan Greenfield) have ceased being empiricists. If all is merely matter in motion nothing can be a malfunction. Just as David Hume said that no one sees causation, no one sees malfunction. All one sees is matter in motion. The idea of malfunction depends on a standard; and that's not reductionism.
- These people never bother to define religion or spiritual either, which is very convenient for them.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
