Lets try this another way: if you have faith the brain creates the mind, and that mind depends on brain, can we please see your logic and evidence?

[RestlessSoul]

This link is balls. I've no idea who this Caroline Leaf may be, but she is talking out of her arse when it comes to energy. Sorry to be rough but this sort of crap annoys me.

It just makes no sense to say that the mind "is energy". Energy is not stuff. It is a property of a physical system. So it is meaningless to speak of energy without saying what physical system it is a property of, i.e. the energy of what?

From the context it seems likely she means the energy of the brain, as that is what she does her experiments on. We know there is electrochemical activity in the brain and particular bits of it are more active when particular types of mental process go on. So if this is the "energy" she is talking about, it is consistent with the idea that the "mind" is the emergent phenomenon of brain activity.

It does not provide evidence for "mind" being somehow a freestanding entity.

I’m not sure how she’s defining energy either, but focusing on that misses the point. There is a link within the link, to her ideas about the energy of the mind, but that’s not particularly relevant to the purposes of this thread.

Nowhere does the author of that article claim that the mind is a freestanding entity. She specifically states that they are interconnected but identifiably different entities, each with qualities of their own. That’s not a difficult concept, so I’m not sure why the distinction is so hard to grasp. It seems to be pretty much the consensus view among neuroscientists, as far as I can tell. Showing, if it can be categorically shown, that a brain is necessary for consciousness, is not the same as showing that activity in the brain alone, is sufficient to account for all the qualities of the mind.

But to return to the linked article; it references the widely observed phenomenon of neuroplasticity. This is the process by which thought leads to changes in the structure of the brain. The mental activity precedes the physical response. Difficult to explain that if the mind is regarded solely as an emergent property of the brain; the implication of neuroplasticity, is that we are observing a feedback loop in which priority does not reside entirely with the physical.

 

[viole]

So far just that I seem to have been born in Egypt twice, and once during the age of sail.

So, you speak andient Egyptian, right?,

and what before that?

ciao

- viole

 

[dybmh]

The brain doesn't "create" the mind. The mind forms by interaction with external stimuli...

Apologies for cropping your post. I agree with everything you wrote, but, I'd like to advance it to the next level, if possible. What is this "external stimuli" in total? How is the brain impacted when this stimuli is reduced? Dumbed down, so to speak. What would happen to a brain that was conceived in a "mindless" environment without access to anything resembling a "mind"? Would it survive?

The first reply to the thread asks if there is evidence of a mind without a brain? The implication is that lacking this evidence increases the likelihood that the mind requires a brain. But there is evidence, Trees communicate threats to the grove without a brain. Most people don't know it, but, it's a scientific fact.

But even if this fact is granted the physicalist will likely deny its relevance defining "mind" in a specific restrictive manner forcing their preconceived beliefs to be true. It's no different than any other biased discussion in that way. In this case it depends on the definition of "mind". Those opposed will set the bar high for defining "mind", those in favor will set the bar low for defining "mind".

Because of this I appreciate the balanced approach you brought in the post I'm replying to. My question is: if the external stimuli can be defined as a "mind", then this "mind" is what produced the brain? Due to evolution? Due to feedback from the senses?

 

[Yerda]

We ARE our bodies and we ARE our natural environment.

In Riccardo Manzotti's Spread Mind hypothesis we are the world relative to our bodies. Got no idea if it is true but there is something I like about the idea. We no longer have to worry about how neurons create consciousness as the world gives it for free.

 

[1137]

You need to think a little bit more before replying imho.
As a child, do you remember yourself thinking ultra complex thoughts and feeling ultra complex emotions but unable to express them? No. You remember that your ways of thinking and feeling were simpler than as a teen. You would have felt the former way if you were a fully formed mind trying to express yourself through a simpler receiver that is the child brain.

Right. Because the connection changes as the receiver evolves. Surely you know the brain of a child isn't like the brain of an adult...

Your second objection is also nonsense. Vastly different makes of TV can access and beam the same channel. This is the hallmark of a receiver, many types can receive the same input for beaming.

Are any 2 brains identical?

 

[1137]

All are evidence, because you refuse to accept them as evidence is not my problem

Yes evidence mind and brain are related. So are you just arguing against a straw man?

 

[1137]

Careful. I think he is describing a receiver and transmitter that are exclusively linked to each other, not general transmitters and receivers like radio stations and radio receivers.

@1137 -

A question for you that might help. You have asked for evidence that the brain creates all thought, have received many answers, and dismissed all of them. Maybe you can tell us what you would consider to be evidence? If you can't do that, then we can reasonably assume that no suggested evidence will be acceptable to you and this whole discussion is a waste of time. Turning it round, we (that disagree with you) can quite readily do the same thing. Evidence of a functioning mind that is not connected to a brain is an example.

At this point literally anything to suggest brain must cause the mind. An argument, a piece of evidence that shows more than the two being related, the same evidence I would need to seriously consider any position.

 

[1137]

So, you speak andient Egyptian, right?,

Very little, though I'm hoping soon to focus more time on it in my MA.

and what before that?

Not sure, what's the relevance?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Very little, though I'm hoping soon to focus more time on it in my MA.

Not sure, what's the relevance?

The relevance is that if your mind is not connected to a brain, then what was it doing before being connected to the organ currently between your, well its ears?

ciao

- viole

 

[1137]

The relevance is that if your mind is not connected to a brain, then what was it doing before being connected to the organ currently between your, well its ears?

ciao

- viole

Living other lives possibly, existing outside of the material realm in likely a much preferable state haha.

 

[Mock Turtle]

But to return to the linked article; it references the widely observed phenomenon of neuroplasticity. This is the process by which thought leads to changes in the structure of the brain. The mental activity precedes the physical response. Difficult to explain that if the mind is regarded solely as an emergent property of the brain; the implication of neuroplasticity, is that we are observing a feedback loop in which priority does not reside entirely with the physical.

Presumably you know about taxi-drivers and the changes in their brains from having to memorise so much - so isn't this more like evidence as to the brain producing the mind, and where our use of such (the mind) in specific ways can alter the brain because of such specific use? Some addictions will also likely cause alterations to pathways in the brain.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes evidence mind and brain are related. So are you just arguing against a straw man?

The brain creates the mind, what straw man is that?

 

[ChristineM]

Living other lives possibly, existing outside of the material realm in likely a much preferable state haha.

Evidence? I'll wait

 

[1137]

The brain creates the mind, what straw man is that?

You seem to be arguing against a straw man position of brain and mind not interacting with each other.

Evidence? I'll wait

That's what this thread is for, to see if physicalists can present any evidence.

 

[The Hammer]

Claim: the brain creates the mind. The mind depends on the brain. When the brain dies mind dies. Etc.

Evidence: ?????

What is "mind", consciousness? If so, we have no ideas what causes it.

OSF

"The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness as Pseudoscience"

 

[ChristineM]

You seem to be arguing against a straw man position of brain and mind not interacting with each other.

That's what this thread is for, to see if physicalists can present any evidence.

The evidence has been given, feel free to ignore it, i don't really care

 

[RestlessSoul]

Presumably you know about taxi-drivers and the changes in their brains from having to memorise so much - so isn't this more like evidence as to the brain producing the mind, and where our use of such (the mind) in specific ways can alter the brain because of such specific use? Some addictions will also likely cause alterations to pathways in the brain.

Yes, I know about cabbies and their enlarged hippocampus. Isn’t that a great example of mental exercise, consciously undertaken, altering the material structure of the brain? The mind processes information, producing a response in an organ of the body.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The brain creates the mind, what straw man is that?

Thus far, this is an unevidenced assertion.

 

[1137]

The evidence has been given, feel free to ignore it, i don't really care

Evidence for a connection between nine and brain yes, and I've acknowledged it.

 

[ChristineM]

Thus far, this is an unevidenced assertion.

Backed by neuroscience