John Page

Owleye:

Interesting, thanks. First, I think the studies quoted do show that the brain is definitely involved in mental activity (not just "may be"). I consider the results of these and other studies as reasonable proof that certain brain anomalies produce different mental phenomena and thus behavior. e.g. Doctors have traced back physical and mental symptoms of certain types of epilepsy to demonstrate correlation with specifc brain abnormalities.

Second, I like you muscle example. Your use of the adjective metaphoric to describe "muscle memory" indicates you don't consider that the muscle has a mind of its own. However, do you consider muscle as purely the muscle cells or including the integration of nervous system sensors and motor actions.

This is exactly the kind of issue I had in mind. For example, there is evidence that significant signal processing occurs within the spinal cord. Thus, the question arises as to whether this is brain/mind processing or whether its just signal transmission. Hence I have been seeking a mind/body border definition that represents a reasonably coherent starting point for epistemological investigation of how we know what we know (or at least what we think we know).

Thanks again, cheers, John

Synaesthesia

 owleye,
You claim that the fact that we know of no mental activity that can operate independent of brain processes doesn't even support the view that mental activity is brain activity? What else is there?

The fact that brains are known to be able to do things (like talk, react, go to sleep, see, hallucinate) that we normally attribute to the mind is certainly suggestive to me.

I personally think that the difference is more one of emphasis. It's obvious that our theories do actually indicate something real. Whether we think of a particle is real is directly proportional to the amount of other theories that can be covered by it's explanatory scope.[see EDIT] Similarly, philosophers who 'deny that consciousness' is real simply emphasize that consciousness is built into theories that are likely inaccurate in important respects.

To clearly distinguish what is real from what is 'merely' theoretical is to misunderstand the theoretical nature of our construction of reality.

Crocodile deathroll,
There is actually empirical evidence suggesting otherwise. An integral aspect of the human developmental process is what stimuli we are exposed to during the development of the brain during pre-linguistic times.

In other words, the firing of our neurons dictates to a large degree how our brains grow up. It is not so much genetically determined (a contradictory notion!) as it is a process of using and developing what the embryological process began.


[EDIT]
I took this text
"Whether we think of a particle is real is directly proportional to the accuracy with which the theory describes the phenomenon in question."

And added a vital reference to explanatory surplus.

"Whether we think of a particle is real is directly proportional to the amount of other theories that can be covered by it's explanatory scope."

[ July 08, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>

crocodile deathroll

I think the problem is, the mind is "information processing" and information per se is boundaryless
and can not be located in any one region of the brain.
Even if critical regions of the brain are damaged the same process can switching the other hemisphere.

Here is a transcript from Australian ABC science show Catalyst
<a href="http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s561888.htm#transcript" target="_blank">BRAIN SWITCHING</a>

John Page

Croc:

I agree and disagree! If you consider a "pure" von Neumann architecture computer you can specify very precisely exactly when and where physically the relevant information (datum) is processed.

On the other hand, with distribted processing systems and fault tolerant systems it can become very difficult to know in advance where a certain piece of information will be processed - indeed some fault tolerant systems use duplication of hardware processors.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point - I'm not totally clear on your "boundaryless" concept.

Cheers, John

Mr. Sammi

Yes JOHN,

A confabulation is a fantasy that has unconsciously replaced fact in memory. A confabulation may be based partly on fact or be a complete construction of the imagination.

I guess this is where a firm grim on sanity must play a part so a complete construction of the imagination does not wreak havoc on the self.

Mabye a truer test on certainity must come replete with backtracking... Ahhh, Descartes was right we must doubt everything to regain everything.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

John Page

Yes, Sammi, that's a key reason for tieing down the mind/body border so you can work with better certainty out into both "external reality" and "internal reality" w.r.t the mind.

IMO the problem with "I think therefore I am" is that it predicates "I" and "think" as subjects, which we intuit but do not actually know (yet) what they are. Perhaps "I think there is an I" would be a better ontological starting point, although my preference is "There are things that are known and things that are not known" This being the case the question arises as to how things become known and what that knowledge comprises. Back to the mind/body issue....

Cheers, John

Mr. Sammi

John, allow me if you can, to introduce two new terms for the mind, which we can call Active thinking, and Passive thinking. These are terms of the mind and as such seperate them from body languages (body language is a neat conjunction of mind and body demonstrated through body and can be something you, John can explore, or anyone else for that matter).

Active thinking involves gathering information concerning the thinking activity in which you are currently engaged. This is the similar to underlining or highlighting or exposing the content of the thought process or the thought process itself. [Now I am thinking about Active thinking, in order to write about it]. If I were to relate this to set theory, and so to speak as having a conscious index into my thoughts or representations. Let Set1 be {a,b,c} and Set2 be {a,b,c,3}.

Set2 represents simple Active thinking, so while sequentially or otherwise one recieves `a`, one counts 1, at `b` one counts 2 and at `c` one counts 3. The difference between Set1 and Set2, is Set2 is an information set, it contains some information about itself, along with the necessary representations.

Set1 is a basic representation which is obtained through the normal process of thinking, which I am calling passive thinking.

If this is not adequately clear, I can expand on it later, but now, what is the benefit of Active thinking?

Active thinking allows you to backtrack using the information you have gathered about your thoughts. This in essence saves a whole lot of doubting, except when one has to doubt the process of Active thinking itself.

*Active thinking is dedicated to Rene Descartes without whose guidance, I would have been solely lost.

Moreover Active thinking can be a mode which can help distinguish between mind independent and mind dependent. (I hope this is not too advanced for discussion)

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi

John, I am remarking, that you completely overlooked a scientific abstract that will physically tie down some of the mind/body border.

These would be the things the mind has control over which makes those elements mind dependent. Like controlling when to pee and losing control over when to pee. Notice, I am not accusing you of lacking the necessary insight to formulate a brain probe, I only said you overlooked it which is a remarkable difference from my viewpoint.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

crocodile deathroll

If there is an intelligence that evolved totally independently from our's on a galaxy billions of light years, then what would stop them from developing a computer of sufficient processing power to process the images that are familiar to us as the Mandelbort Set?. Or is it possible to have preferred regions in the visible universe where certain pieces of information (like on a certain von Neumann architecture computer) can be processed and others cannot be?

If we strip away that triad of memories (episodic, semantic, and procedural) and we are just simply "conscious" then where is the separation between one entity of consciousness and an other if consciousness is just a genetically triggered operating system for neural systems in general?

On a subatomic level we are all emulation exactly the same physical processes as there is now one atom in the universe that is truly unique to you or I so without episodic, semantic, and procedural memories we default back to those fundamental and universal physical processes.

I think you must realize that genetic information has to be boundaryless because it repeats the same patterns over and over again. Even if you were to grow pea plants on a planet under ideal conditions on the galaxy Andromeda the information processes are still exactly emulated like the pea plants the remain behind on Earth.

Human epistemology is another example, as we did not need Darwin to exist a priori before we discovered evolution because another naturalist which in this case was Alfred Wallace in the East Indies at the time had formulated a similar theory. If Darwin was savaged to death by a giant Galapagos turtle before he could publish his theories, then Wallace would of just taken the credit instead. The collective human mind had already ripe for it with an epistemological flash point with the discovery of the gorilla. It was only just a matter of who's finger was fastest on the buzzer, and that just happened to be Darwin and he took the credit . But I am sure at that epistemological flash point the same idea was boundaryless, and thus was running through the minds of hundreds of naturalists and Darwin and Wallace that was game enough to tell.

John Page

Agreed. I think the mind is all about (remote) control. Watch a baby exploring its body/environment, you can almost see "I think therefore my leg moves".

Cheers, John