The below post was incorporated into my e-book The Apple of Knowledge. If this interests you, please consider buying my book.
Okay, this blog is not supposed to be focused upon the philosophical question of the mind-brain identity. Next month I am going to start posting on entirely different topics. But permit me one last mind-brain blog post. . . .
How do we know that the mind is the brain? Three reasons:
1. Brain damage. Science has learned, from over 100 years of experience, that brain damage to a specific section of the brain corresponds to a failure in a specific function of the mind. For example, there is a part of the brain which once damaged causes the mind to cease to recognize faces, so a person can see the face of a loved one and not know who they are, and be unable to remember faces. This strongly suggests that the mind is composed of the collection of mental functions of each part of the human brain.
2. Drug effects. Drugs such as alcohol and marijuana have a specific effect upon the mind. These are physical substances which alter the brain. This is what we would expect if the mind is the brain. If the mind were a soul then we would not expect drugs to alter or control it.
3. Sleep, etc. If the mind was a disembodied soul then we would expect it to remain awake while the brain sleeps, not to be controlled by bodily urges such as hunger, etc.
The counterargument is people's anecdotes of out of body experiences and spiritual experiences, but this is adequately explained by hallucinations and wishful thinking.
One last note: I strongly believe that evolution not only changed the human brain, it also added new things on top of the old ones while leaving the old parts relatively unchanged. Thus I think the neocortex is the distinctly human reasoning part of the brain, while the older brain structures remain much as they were in our animal ancestors. This is why the conscious mind can focus and concentrate, but the older parts of the brain have a remarkably short attention span and are easily distracted: back one million years ago the brain needed to quickly react to new stimuli to survive (e.g. by fighting or running away from predators and dangers), whereas in modern man the need to mentally concentrate is key to survival (e.g. learning and developing technology). A lot of people underachieve their intellectual potential by not engaging the distinctly human reasoning part of their brain and instead let the animal part of their brain do most of their cognitive activity, which explains all the people who have short attention spans and do nothing but watch TV and eat potato chips in their spare time, instead of reading great books and thinking deep thoughts. That last part, however, is just my opinion, and is conceptually distinct from the brain-mind identity hypothesis.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
Brains vs. Souls, and Brain Management
This blog post has found a new home in my book The Apple of Knowledge. If you enjoy it, please buy my book!
There is a popular Philosophy 101/Philosophy of Mind argument that looks at the data from brains which have had the corpus collosum, which connects the brain's right and left hemispheres together, severed. Severing the corpus collosum was an old remedy for seizures which is no longer used, but the data remains. These brains had minds where one part of the mind did not know what another part of the mind was seeing. For example, the left eye would look at an apple but the mouth would say "I don't see an apple." The Analytic philosophers' argument is that a "person" or a "mind" is one whole being, and therefore the self cannot be identical with the brain. I draw precisely the opposite conclusion: it is scientifically undeniable that the mind is the brain, and therefore cognitive neuroscience must conclude that the mind/brain has many different parts, which work together in a healthy brain but which can become separated by physical or psychological dysfunction. Based upon reading about it and personal observations, I believe the brain has several distinct parts, which most people would recognize. The consciousness or "upper brain" is probably the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex, possibly only the neocortex section. The consciousness is aware of reality and uses conscious reasoning. The "lower brain" or subconscious mind is probably many different structures, probably including both the other lobes of the cerebral cortex and structures in the middle of the brain including the amygdalae and basil ganglia. The lower brain uses subconscious reasoning, has emotional reactions such as lust or sadness, and also implements behavioral conditioning through feelings of reward and punishment. The "bottom brain" or unconscious mind controls bodily functions like digestion, and is invisible to the conscious mind.
I think that evolution intended for the conscious mind to "manage" the subconscious mind and to make a deliberate effort for the brain to function properly and for the different parts to work as a whole. The lower brain has a naturally short attention span and gets easily distracted by sensory stimuli or thinking about sex, and has the attention span of a fish--maybe 30 seconds before something distracts it. Concentration and focus come from the upper brain. The lower brain also has a natural tendency to be irrational, and I believe that evolution intended the upper brain to impose rationality upon the lower brain. Cognitive neuroscience indicates that the brain often functions by having biological impulses and urges which can be suppressed and inhibited by the action of the brain, and I think that the consciousness acts by controlling the lower brain and directing the brain's tendencies into a rational plan. Performing a task uses the entire brain, with the bottom brain interfacing with and moving the body, the lower brain using the habits conditioned from experience, and the upper brain paying attention and thinking about the task.
The human brain has a design flaw in that the consciousness naturally thinks of itself as a nonphysical "soul" and sees the lower brain as the "body." I dispute such a view of the mind. The consciousness is a part of the brain, and the mind is a physical object in reality, a "res extensa" to discredit Descartes using his own terms. The consciousness as brain does not mean that there is no such thing as free will. As stated, the brain can modify and influence itself by its internal cognitive processes, and the conscious mind can make decisions which control the lower brain. But the lower brain can also have physical malfunctions which impose irrationality upon the consciousness, which is how I would characterize mental illness. The self is not ethically responsible for mental illness which has an entirely physical origin, although it is the task of the upper brain to impose rationality upon the self, and it is also probably possible for a brain to freely choose to behave in an insane manner. Free will is "top-down" causation wherein the upper brain controls the brain's behavior, whereas mental illness is a type of "bottom-up" causation wherein physiological factors influence or control the conscious mind's thinking. Obviously this would be difficult to scientifically inspect using contemporary methods, but could be inferred from first person introspection. This is not so much a scientific postulate as it is a theory which could be called philosophy of mind/philosophy of science presenting a foundation for cognitive neuroscience.
There is a popular Philosophy 101/Philosophy of Mind argument that looks at the data from brains which have had the corpus collosum, which connects the brain's right and left hemispheres together, severed. Severing the corpus collosum was an old remedy for seizures which is no longer used, but the data remains. These brains had minds where one part of the mind did not know what another part of the mind was seeing. For example, the left eye would look at an apple but the mouth would say "I don't see an apple." The Analytic philosophers' argument is that a "person" or a "mind" is one whole being, and therefore the self cannot be identical with the brain. I draw precisely the opposite conclusion: it is scientifically undeniable that the mind is the brain, and therefore cognitive neuroscience must conclude that the mind/brain has many different parts, which work together in a healthy brain but which can become separated by physical or psychological dysfunction. Based upon reading about it and personal observations, I believe the brain has several distinct parts, which most people would recognize. The consciousness or "upper brain" is probably the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex, possibly only the neocortex section. The consciousness is aware of reality and uses conscious reasoning. The "lower brain" or subconscious mind is probably many different structures, probably including both the other lobes of the cerebral cortex and structures in the middle of the brain including the amygdalae and basil ganglia. The lower brain uses subconscious reasoning, has emotional reactions such as lust or sadness, and also implements behavioral conditioning through feelings of reward and punishment. The "bottom brain" or unconscious mind controls bodily functions like digestion, and is invisible to the conscious mind.
I think that evolution intended for the conscious mind to "manage" the subconscious mind and to make a deliberate effort for the brain to function properly and for the different parts to work as a whole. The lower brain has a naturally short attention span and gets easily distracted by sensory stimuli or thinking about sex, and has the attention span of a fish--maybe 30 seconds before something distracts it. Concentration and focus come from the upper brain. The lower brain also has a natural tendency to be irrational, and I believe that evolution intended the upper brain to impose rationality upon the lower brain. Cognitive neuroscience indicates that the brain often functions by having biological impulses and urges which can be suppressed and inhibited by the action of the brain, and I think that the consciousness acts by controlling the lower brain and directing the brain's tendencies into a rational plan. Performing a task uses the entire brain, with the bottom brain interfacing with and moving the body, the lower brain using the habits conditioned from experience, and the upper brain paying attention and thinking about the task.
The human brain has a design flaw in that the consciousness naturally thinks of itself as a nonphysical "soul" and sees the lower brain as the "body." I dispute such a view of the mind. The consciousness is a part of the brain, and the mind is a physical object in reality, a "res extensa" to discredit Descartes using his own terms. The consciousness as brain does not mean that there is no such thing as free will. As stated, the brain can modify and influence itself by its internal cognitive processes, and the conscious mind can make decisions which control the lower brain. But the lower brain can also have physical malfunctions which impose irrationality upon the consciousness, which is how I would characterize mental illness. The self is not ethically responsible for mental illness which has an entirely physical origin, although it is the task of the upper brain to impose rationality upon the self, and it is also probably possible for a brain to freely choose to behave in an insane manner. Free will is "top-down" causation wherein the upper brain controls the brain's behavior, whereas mental illness is a type of "bottom-up" causation wherein physiological factors influence or control the conscious mind's thinking. Obviously this would be difficult to scientifically inspect using contemporary methods, but could be inferred from first person introspection. This is not so much a scientific postulate as it is a theory which could be called philosophy of mind/philosophy of science presenting a foundation for cognitive neuroscience.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
The Movies of 2012
My favorite movies of 2012:
1. Atlas Shrugged. They really did this one right. I am surprised that it was not more popular at the box office. A must-see for objectivists and libertarians. Don't bother to see Part One though, it was not nearly as good. Atlas Shrugged Part Two stands by itself, and was very impressive.
2. The Avengers. The first truly incredible 3-D action movie. As a lifelong Buffy fan, it was nice to have another chance to see Joss Whedon work his magic. I wonder how long it will be before all movies and TV shows are in 3-D. Probably only a matter of time.
3. Batman. Surprisingly this movie had a very libertarian, anti-socialism message in the end, and it was a fun film with great action and some unexpected twists. Implausible at times, but well thought out and good execution by good actors.
4. Skyfall. Finally, the producers have decided to return James Bond to what made the classic 007 films great. Enough of all that new stuff, the last two Bond movies were horrible! This one was better, and may have saved the franchise. Implausible, but fun.
What I am looking forward to seeing: The Hobbit. Need I say more? Although I wish they would have done the entire novel as one 9 hour-long movie. I would have watched it from start to finish.
What I have no interest in seeking: Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part Two. I absolutely LOVED the original Twilight movie, but each sequel was worse than the one before. Breaking Dawn Part One was sheer propaganda for the pro-life movement, with the whole Bella's baby thing. I have no problem with a movie having a message, but there has to actually be some sort of entertainment injected into the movie to carry you along with the ideas. By the way, on the subject of Twilight, Twilight is Pride and Prejudice with vampires, and New Moon is Romeo and Juliet with vampires. Well-written and clever, but these are plots borrowed from the classics, these were not original inventions. Also it seems somehow dishonest to make a movie franchise based around hot teenage guys and then build it as a message about the wrongness of sex before marriage. The message isn't necessarily bad, it's just inconsistent and self-contradictory with the appeal of the movies.
1. Atlas Shrugged. They really did this one right. I am surprised that it was not more popular at the box office. A must-see for objectivists and libertarians. Don't bother to see Part One though, it was not nearly as good. Atlas Shrugged Part Two stands by itself, and was very impressive.
2. The Avengers. The first truly incredible 3-D action movie. As a lifelong Buffy fan, it was nice to have another chance to see Joss Whedon work his magic. I wonder how long it will be before all movies and TV shows are in 3-D. Probably only a matter of time.
3. Batman. Surprisingly this movie had a very libertarian, anti-socialism message in the end, and it was a fun film with great action and some unexpected twists. Implausible at times, but well thought out and good execution by good actors.
4. Skyfall. Finally, the producers have decided to return James Bond to what made the classic 007 films great. Enough of all that new stuff, the last two Bond movies were horrible! This one was better, and may have saved the franchise. Implausible, but fun.
What I am looking forward to seeing: The Hobbit. Need I say more? Although I wish they would have done the entire novel as one 9 hour-long movie. I would have watched it from start to finish.
What I have no interest in seeking: Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part Two. I absolutely LOVED the original Twilight movie, but each sequel was worse than the one before. Breaking Dawn Part One was sheer propaganda for the pro-life movement, with the whole Bella's baby thing. I have no problem with a movie having a message, but there has to actually be some sort of entertainment injected into the movie to carry you along with the ideas. By the way, on the subject of Twilight, Twilight is Pride and Prejudice with vampires, and New Moon is Romeo and Juliet with vampires. Well-written and clever, but these are plots borrowed from the classics, these were not original inventions. Also it seems somehow dishonest to make a movie franchise based around hot teenage guys and then build it as a message about the wrongness of sex before marriage. The message isn't necessarily bad, it's just inconsistent and self-contradictory with the appeal of the movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)