On the origin and function of minds

[Copernicus]

There should be no mystery why animals have brains. Animals move, and moving bodies with good guidance systems are much more likely to survive and leave offspring than those with poor guidance systems. We see the rudiments of a brain even in animals with simple nervous systems such as planaria. The peripheral nervous system serves two functions--to report information about the organism's state of health and environs and to actuate movement. The central nervous system, or brain, correlates information from the central nervous system and directs movement. So brains exist to guide the movement of bodies.

Human brains are extremely complex in comparison to the rudimentary guidance systems of planaria, but they still retain their main function as guidance systems. Consciousness and self-awareness are evolved properties of these guidance systems, because advanced mental functions allow humans to compute future states and plan actions far into the future. So there is a good evolutionary reason why brains and the minds they produce would come into existence for embodied beings such as ourselves.

My question is why there should ever be such a thing as a disembodied mind. Most people take it for granted that minds can exist independently of the bodies that they are evolved to control, but what possible purpose could a mind without a body have? Our gods are idealized versions of ourselves--our minds. People often argue that a kind of supermind might better explain the origin of the universe, because a mind would have to exist prior to the existence of physical reality. It's just that our own minds clearly evolved to serve our physical conditions, not vice versa. So why would a mind like ours exist independently of a body? Does that really make sense?

 

[idav]

I believe that mind can evolve without necessarily being embodied. The potential must have been there since the beginning. To me, if there is a god it would have evolved to have sentience eventually enabling matter to direct itself. What doesn't make sense is a mind being around before substance when clearly the mind is a byproduct of something physical.

 

[Storm]

I believe that what we recognize as our 'mind' is an event, the interplay of pure matter and pure consciousness, both of which are immortal.

If we were to somehow analyze that divine essence of consciousness, it would be quite alien to us.

I don't know if that qualifies as a 'disembodied mind' for you or not, so I'll wait for a reply before continuing.

 

[Reverend Richard]

.........

......clearly the mind is a byproduct of something physical.

Wow. If you can prove that you will win the Nobel Prize in about 6 different fields.
(Okay, maybe just 3...).

 

[idav]

Wow. If you can prove that you will win the Nobel Prize in about 6 different fields.
(Okay, maybe just 3...).

It is all based on cause and effect. Matter can't know about itself until it can react with something. If I were to look at a single atom, can the atom "know" it is being without first being a physical reality?

Thank You, no reward needed. Just glad to make a difference.

 

[Copernicus]

I believe that mind can evolve without necessarily being embodied. The potential must have been there since the beginning. To me, if there is a god it would have evolved to have sentience eventually enabling matter to direct itself. What doesn't make sense is a mind being around before substance when clearly the mind is a byproduct of something physical.

Minds have a number of complex functions--input from sensors (touch, feel, smell, etc.), an interpretive model for sensory input, memory, awareness of current conditions, calculation of future conditions, emotion-driven motivation, etc. These are all properties that follow from the need for a moving body to navigate safely in a potentially dangerous environment. Evolution occurs with self-replicating processes, where the replication has imperfections that allow for adaptive change. Death is a key driver in evolution. If organisms didn't die, they wouldn't evolve. I do not see how it would be possible for a disembodied mind such as a god to come into existence by that kind of process. Minds exist to serve the needs of a moving body. Plants do not move, so it is no accident that they lack brains and minds.

I believe that what we recognize as our 'mind' is an event, the interplay of pure matter and pure consciousness, both of which are immortal.

You are not alone in that belief. I believe that consciousness evolved in animals because it enhances survival of a physical body.

If we were to somehow analyze that divine essence of consciousness, it would be quite alien to us.

I don't know if that qualifies as a 'disembodied mind' for you or not, so I'll wait for a reply before continuing.

You seem to think of minds as disembodied in principle. I have been promoting an analysis of consciousness here, and I do not see what it buys us to talk about "divine essence".

Wow. If you can prove that you will win the Nobel Prize in about 6 different fields.
(Okay, maybe just 3...).

Oh, I really doubt that. The idea that minds depend on physical brains for their existence is quite old and widely accepted on an intuitive level. Everyone knows that brain damage can affect mental activity. However, there is a commonly held belief that minds can exist independently of brains and that consciousness occurs in minds that have been disembodied through death. I consider that possibility to be extremely remote, but driven by wishful thinking. Fear of death is a powerful instinct.

It is all based on cause and effect. Matter can't know about itself until it can react with something. If I were to look at a single atom, can the atom "know" it is being without first being a physical reality?

No claim is being made here that matter knows about itself. Minds "know" things. Physical mental activity in a brain is the cause of the mind. I am not rejecting mind-body dualism here, just the idea that minds can exist independently of bodies. Bodies are what make minds useful.

 

[Storm]

You are not alone in that belief. I believe that consciousness evolved in animals because it enhances survival of a physical body.

Methinks we need to define our terms. By consciousness do you mean base perception, intelligence, sapience? Please be as specific as possible.

For myself, consciousness is a fundamental principle of our reality... rather inevitable once one accepts the proposition of a panentheistic cosmos. This force is not the same as a human mind, as I attempted to explain. However, it is one of the foundations.

You seem to think of minds as disembodied in principle. I have been promoting an analysis of consciousness here, and I do not see what it buys us to talk about "divine essence".

Will answer this once you've clarified as requested.

 

[Reverend Richard]

It is all based on cause and effect. Matter can't know about itself until it can react with something. If I were to look at a single atom, can the atom "know" it is being without first being a physical reality?

Thank You, no reward needed. Just glad to make a difference.

An atom (or atoms) act and react with each other, and with other elements, using their outer shell of electrons. For example, we get an electric current when atoms exchange electrons via their outer shells. But does that make them conscious?

I honestly have no idea.

 

[Copernicus]

Methinks we need to define our terms. By consciousness do you mean base perception, intelligence, sapience? Please be as specific as possible.

I take consciousness to be the experience of a sensorium. Technically, it incorporates and integrates mental functions that we might call perception, memory, calculation, etc. Note that there is no verb that corresponds to "conscious", but the adjective still takes objects. That is, you are conscious "of" things. So consciousness refers to a relationship between a perceiver and things perceived.

For myself, consciousness is a fundamental principle of our reality... rather inevitable once one accepts the proposition of a panentheistic cosmos. This force is not the same as a human mind, as I attempted to explain. However, it is one of the foundations.

There are some philosopher-scientists (such as Penrose) that take the position that consciousness is a quantifiable property of matter. I think that it should be analyzed as a functioning sensorium, which makes it hard to interpret as a quantifiable property. The problem I have with their interpretation is that it doesn't tell us what it is about brains that relates to conscious experiences in humans. Consciousness per se makes more sense to me as something that is useful to the survival of a self-replicating animal. Moving bodies need to be aware of their surroundings and their own state of health to find food, avoid danger, and procreate. The more conscious they are of their surroundings, the more successful they will be at survival.

An atom (or atoms) act and react with each other, and with other elements, using their outer shell of electrons. For example, we get an electric current when atoms exchange electrons via their outer shells. But does that make them conscious?

I honestly have no idea.

See my above response to Storm.

 

[Storm]

I take consciousness to be the experience of a sensorium. Technically, it incorporates and integrates mental functions that we might call perception, memory, calculation, etc. Note that there is no verb that corresponds to "conscious", but the adjective still takes objects. That is, you are conscious "of" things. So consciousness refers to a relationship between a perceiver and things perceived.

Hmmmmmm. That's very close to what I mean. Close enough that we can communicate, anyway.

There are some philosopher-scientists (such as Penrose) that take the position that consciousness is a quantifiable property of matter. I think that it should be analyzed as a functioning sensorium, which makes it hard to interpret as a quantifiable property. The problem I have with their interpretation is that it doesn't tell us what it is about brains that relates to conscious experiences in humans.

I don't think either of those interpretations get to the heart of matters, myself. I don't believe it's particle-based, nor do I believe it's a function. Rather, it's one of the sources of life.

Consciousness per se makes more sense to me as something that is useful to the survival of a self-replicating animal. Moving bodies need to be aware of their surroundings and their own state of health to find food, avoid danger, and procreate. The more conscious they are of their surroundings, the more successful they will be at survival.

Uncontested - which is why animals have more complex consciousness than say, plants.

Now to get back to your earlier question:

You seem to think of minds as disembodied in principle. I have been promoting an analysis of consciousness here, and I do not see what it buys us to talk about "divine essence".

Consciousness itself is not a "mind." Minds are functions of consciousness. Nor is consciousness disembodied - even the divine consciousness is tied to (equally divine) matter. In animals, the brain is the lynchpin of their interaction.

Your original question, as I interpret, was how people can believe in consciousness without brains. For me, that question cannot be separated from theology, which is why I brought up the divine essence or foundation of consciousness.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

There should be no mystery why animals have brains.

(To the tune of "The Power of Love"): "Modality...is a curious thought. Make a one man's should... into another man's ought..."

Human brains are extremely complex in comparison to the rudimentary guidance systems of planaria

By most accounts they are extremely complex compared to anything.

Consciousness and self-awareness are evolved properties of these guidance systems, because advanced mental functions allow humans to compute future states and plan actions far into the future. So there is a good evolutionary reason why brains and the minds they produce would come into existence for embodied beings such as ourselves.

Careful of such juxtaposition. You would know better than I the dangers of combining "embodied" and "compute" in a description of the mind. More to the point though, the problem which plagues evolutionary psychology is the "just so" nature of explanation. Bigger brains means bigger heads and more fatalities during childbirth. And although homo sapiens managed to survive, for most of our time on the planet we didn't really have much more going for us than primates. Sharks have been around longer than hominids without anywhere near the brain power, and managed although just about every hominid genera is extinct, sharks have flourished for tens of millions of years (hundreds, depending on what one wishes to count as a "shark").

My question is why there should ever be such a thing as a disembodied mind. Most people take it for granted that minds can exist independently of the bodies that they are evolved to control, but what possible purpose could a mind without a body have?

Remember, though, that it isn't so much a disembodied mind as a soul (ghost in the machine and all that), in which case the purpose usually comes from god or a similar entity.

Our gods are idealized versions of ourselves--our minds.

I don't know about that. Recall how problematic the Greek pantheon and associated myths were for "enlightened" 5th century Athens. But perhaps by "our gods" you mean modern? Even then, though, I'm not sure a very good argument can be made for gods as idealized versions of the mind.

People often argue that a kind of supermind might better explain the origin of the universe, because a mind would have to exist prior to the existence of physical reality. It's just that our own minds clearly evolved to serve our physical conditions, not vice versa.

This appears to be an infinitive of purpose, which contradicts evolutionary theory. Our minds evolved, and either this was part of the reason we survived, or not. By contrast, a believer in god or a similar notion actually can say that our minds have a purpose because they can point to a creator who is responsible.

So why would a mind like ours exist independently of a body? Does that really make sense?

"What is all this with your body?" said Zaphod, anxious to delay
whatever it was that was going to happen to him.

"Well, it's ... it's busy you know," said Gargravarr hesitantly.

"You mean it's got a mind of its own?" said Zaphod.

There was a long and slightly chilly pause before Gargravarr
spoke again.

"I have to say," he replied eventually, "that I find that remark
in rather poor taste."

Zaphod muttered a bewildered and embarrassed apology.

"No matter," said Gargravarr, "you weren't to know."

The voice fluttered unhappily.

"The truth is," it continued in tones which suggested he was
trying very hard to keep it under control, "the truth is that we
are currently undergoing a period of legal trial separation. I
suspect it will end in divorce."

The voice was still again, leaving Zaphod with no idea of what to
say. He mumbled uncertainly.

"I think we are probably not very well suited," said Gargravarr
again at length, "we never seemed to be happy doing the same
things. We always had the greatest arguments over sex and
fishing. Eventually we tried to combine the two, but that only
led to disaster, as you can probably imagine. And now my body
refuses to let me in. It won't even see me ..."

He paused again, tragically. The wind whipped across the plain.

"It says I only inhibit it. I pointed out that in fact I was
meant to inhibit it, and it said that that was exactly the sort
of smart alec remark that got right up a body's left nostril, and
so we left it. It will probably get custody of my forename."

"Oh ..." said Zaphod faintly, "and what's that?"

"Pizpot," said the voice, "My name is Pizpot Gargravarr. Says it
all really doesn't it?"

"Errr ..." said Zaphod sympathetically.

"And that is why I, as a disembodied mind, have this job,
Custodian of the Total Perspective Vortex. No one will ever walk
on the ground of this planet. Except the victims of the Vortex -
they don't really count I'm afraid."

 

[PolyHedral]

My question is why there should ever be such a thing as a disembodied mind. Most people take it for granted that minds can exist independently of the bodies that they are evolved to control, but what possible purpose could a mind without a body have? Our gods are idealized versions of ourselves--our minds. People often argue that a kind of supermind might better explain the origin of the universe, because a mind would have to exist prior to the existence of physical reality. It's just that our own minds clearly evolved to serve our physical conditions, not vice versa. So why would a mind like ours exist independently of a body? Does that really make sense?

I take the view that the mind, and everything it does, is a matter of computation. This means that disembodied minds, as such, are impossible: there must always be some physical process doing the computations.

However, this is slightly different from the disembodied minds you're talking about, because the physical process doing the computing isn't necessarily (inside) a body, and even if a mind is connected to a body, the body does not necessarily contain the computer running the mind. Essentially, the computer running the mind, and the mind's avatar are different things, and you only need the former.

Put this way, it's pretty obvious you can have minds with no associated avatar; Google's various data farms are a pretty good example. Stock exchange bots are another example of "minds" being aware of an environment which nonetheless does not have any sort of avatar or embodiment connected to it.

 

[Willamena]

I agree with those who'd say mind without a body isn't useful. Rather than argue metaphysics, though, I'd argue semantics: I suspect it is an extrapolation into the ontological of an incomplete epistemological description.

(That's my quota of big words for the day.)

 

[idav]

Minds have a number of complex functions--input from sensors (touch, feel, smell, etc.), an interpretive model for sensory input, memory, awareness of current conditions, calculation of future conditions, emotion-driven motivation, etc. These are all properties that follow from the need for a moving body to navigate safely in a potentially dangerous environment. Evolution occurs with self-replicating processes, where the replication has imperfections that allow for adaptive change. Death is a key driver in evolution. If organisms didn't die, they wouldn't evolve. I do not see how it would be possible for a disembodied mind such as a god to come into existence by that kind of process. Minds exist to serve the needs of a moving body. Plants do not move, so it is no accident that they lack brains and minds.

Life is very interesting in that it is matter which has intent. It is hard to distinguish between something that evolved due to intent or evolved due to being in the correct circumstances to thrive and have useful adaptive change. I would say it is a little of both once life arises. Plants don't move but they have living cells and they are able to adapt to limited degree, so they show the beginnings of a mind with intent.

I think it does require getting to the point of our complexity to have intelligent design but if we could evolve in such a short time then surely something before us could as well. Yet at the same time we have to acknowledge the fact that matter has been evolving for 14 billion years and I would think that awareness, embodied or not, did eventually occur. It is also possible that awareness evolved just prior to the big bang. Disembodied awareness is useful which would allow for matter to evolve to the point of actually being able to compute something.

No claim is being made here that matter knows about itself. Minds "know" things. Physical mental activity in a brain is the cause of the mind. I am not rejecting mind-body dualism here, just the idea that minds can exist independently of bodies. Bodies are what make minds useful.

Same as matter makes energy useful.

An atom (or atoms) act and react with each other, and with other elements, using their outer shell of electrons. For example, we get an electric current when atoms exchange electrons via their outer shells. But does that make them conscious?

I honestly have no idea.

Assuming we need nothing more than matter and energy to have awareness then any basic interactions of atoms and molecules would be the beginning of awareness. Which would make sense given that we can make objects seem aware even to the point of mimicking human intelligence.

 

[painted wolf]

Just a quick nit to pick... most mobile life does just fine without a brain.

You could argue that brains are more key to achieving greater size and keeping increasing numbers of specialized cells working in sync with each other.

wa:do

 

[George-ananda]

Everyone knows that brain damage can affect mental activity..

But, I don't see how this fact furthers your argument. The belief of us spiritual types is this damage effects the ability of the mind to normally express itself in the embodied state. There is no damage to the mind in its disembodied state (such as after physical death).

My belief is the mind is primary and may temporarily incarnate a physical body but it's not itself effected by damage to the physical biody.

 

[George-ananda]

Assuming we need nothing more than matter and energy to have awareness

Doesn't there also need to be that which is capable of awareness. These atoms and molecules don't think and consequently can't have what we call awareness...

then any basic interactions of atoms and molecules would be the beginning of awareness.

I can't agree....the most important aspect is not there...something capable of awareness......(perhaps, and I believe, a non-physical observer)

Which would make sense given that we can make objects seem aware even to the point of mimicking human intelligence.

I can't agree.....these are just programs that try to predict how an entity that was aware would respond to a stimulus. Ultimately these objects are governed by electrons moving mechanically through logic switches. There is nothing there that is aware of anything in the sense that we living things have awareness. Does this object care (or even know) if you smacked it with a Louisiville slugger.

 

[idav]

Doesn't there also need to be that which is capable of awareness. These atoms and molecules don't think and consequently can't have what we call awareness...





I can't agree....the most important aspect is not there...something capable of awareness......(perhaps, and I believe, a non-physical observer)




I can't agree.....these are just programs that try to predict how an entity that was aware would respond to a stimulus. Ultimately these objects are governed by electrons moving mechanically through logic switches. There is nothing there that is aware of anything in the sense that we living things have awareness. Does this object care (or even know) if you smacked it with a Louisiville slugger.

You would disagree with the rest as soon as you disagreed with the premise I put out as an assumption.

There is nothing to indicate that the brain needs anything more than the collection of neurons and chemical reactions to produce what we experience as consciousness. As such it can be mimicked by mimicking the functionality of the brain cells and chemical reactions.

Would the machine care if I dismantled it, likely not anymore than a carrot cares that I pulled in out of the ground and boiled it. Just cause it isn't as complex and sentient as a human brain doesn't mean it isn't aware at least at some level.

 

[PolyHedral]

Doesn't there also need to be that which is capable of awareness. These atoms and molecules don't think and consequently can't have what we call awareness...

As mentioned above, the easy way around this is that they don't and can't be aware. However, their conglomerate does and can be.

 

[George-ananda]

You would disagree with the rest as soon as you disagreed with the premise I put out as an assumption.

I agree, it all follows from our different premises.

There is nothing to indicate that the brain needs anything more than the collection of neurons and chemical reactions to produce what we experience as consciousness. As such it can be mimicked by mimicking the functionality of the brain cells and chemical reactions.

That would not explain while people with no detectable brain activity have vivid mental events as in the NDE or how people can have knowledge at a distance (away from the reach of the five senses).

Next, you'll probably come back with the common materialistic counter-arguments for these phenomena. Then, I'll come back on why those materialistic explanations are inadequate to fully explain the phenomena......Then you'll tell me why I'm wrong.....so we both take different sides and it will be unsolvable
by debate...sounds like I've been there?......

Would the machine care if I dismantled it, likely not anymore than a carrot cares that I pulled in out of the ground and boiled it. Just cause it isn't as complex and sentient as a human brain doesn't mean it isn't aware at least at some level.

No, I think what you said is true about the carrot but not about the man-made object. The carrot plant has life and does experience at some level. The man-made object has no life and there is nothing there that has a 'collective' experience when it was smashed........My premise is different than yours....with life there is a non-physical observer involved that experiences.