Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MyKell · 02-24-2003, 06:40 PM

Sir John Eccles was probably one of the very few scientists who held strongly that the mind/brain duality was a valid concept. He also suggested the presence of perceptrons that are units of perception interacting with neurons at certain parts in the brain.
When one looks at the new theories of consciousness, it seems that all hardcore neuroscientists (like Crick and Edelman) have abandoned the idea of B/M duality.
Are there any new philosophical frameworks that support the B/M duality. Is it philosophically plausible for consciousness to be an emergent property of neuronal interactions?
What's the status of this whole issue?

John Page · 02-24-2003, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MyKell
Sir John Eccles....

Quote:

Truth Journal
Message from Nobel Laureate Sir John Eccles
(Board of Advisors)
"I am happy to be associated with a Journal that is devoted to the immense and paramount theme of Christian thought in the modern world."

jpbrooks · 02-24-2003, 10:06 PM

Well, this is one that I'm not really certain about, but Rorty's stance on metaphysics has been classified as "antirealistic". But he seems to acknowledge the reality of both body and mind. So he might (loosely) be described as a dualist.

And the problem of how the interaction between mind and body is supposed to occur is the main problem for dualism.

jpbrooks · 02-24-2003, 10:37 PM

And as far as philosophical frameworks are concerned, David Chalmers comes to mind.

crocodile deathroll · 02-24-2003, 11:24 PM

IMO consciousness is an emergent property of genetic promoting like the basic scaffolding of the brain was genetically determined, and individualized consciousness emerged later.

excreationist · 02-25-2003, 01:37 AM

crocodile deathroll:
I think the grammar in your post is wrong or something...

MyKell:

Quote:

Is it philosophically plausible for consciousness to be an emergent property of neuronal interactions?

From John Eccles on Mind and Brain:

Quote:

Daniel C. Dennett, says that our brains contain

"a cobbled-together collection of specialist brain circuits, which . . . conspire together to produce a . . . more or less well-designed virtual machine . . . By yoking these independently evolved specialist organs together in common cause, and thereby giving their union vastly enhanced powers, this virtual machine, this software of the brain, performs a sort of internal political miracle: It creates a virtual captain of the crew . . ." --Consciousness Explained, 1991, p. 2 28

I haven't read his book yet but our ideas are probably pretty similar. Anyway, not any old neuronal interactions will do... e.g. I don't think a brain you've grown in a jar that has never had sensory inputs would be conscious.
See my posts on What is consciousness? and Is materialism true? for my ideas about materialistic consciousness.

Quote:

Are there any new philosophical frameworks that support the B/M duality?

Probably most theistic philosophers would believe in B/M duality... or at least most theists.... (Many theistic philosophers probably believe everything is just in the mind of God though, so there isn't really any physical matter... or something.)
Here is the "Philosophy of Mind" section in google's directory.

MyKell · 02-25-2003, 03:56 AM

I am aware of the current theories of consciousness in Neuroscience, namely those of Edelman, Crick, LeDoux... The all seem to focus on global synaptic interaction and Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC)
It remains that none of them suggests anything to solve the problem of qualia (the redness of red, and the painfulness of pain). Edelman calls the problem an untangled knot.
I was just wanting to see if anyone knew a philosophical framework that is comparable to those natural scientific framework.
I am a naturalist myself... but I'm just frustrated with qualia I guess..

Oxymoron · 02-25-2003, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MyKell
I am a naturalist myself... but I'm just frustrated with qualia I guess..

Qualia are not worth losing sleep over, IMHO. There is, in effect, nothing to explain: there is an experience, we learn to call it "red", we abstract redness and apply it to other similar experiences. Where is the mystery?

Abrupt · 02-25-2003, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MyKell

I am a naturalist myself... but I'm just frustrated with qualia I guess..

Then read some Dennett. Try starting here.

MyKell · 02-25-2003, 07:35 AM

Oxymoron, The mystery is in how matter becomes imagination in the first place. What are the physical processes that give rise to qualia, and on what hierarchial level should people study their properties?

Abrupt, thanks for the advice. Since we are talking about Dennett, did you read his new book, "Freedom Evolves"? I can't find any reviews for it on amazon.com

02-24-2003, 06:40 PM	#1
MyKell Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Amman, Jordan Posts: 258	Mind/Brain Duality Sir John Eccles was probably one of the very few scientists who held strongly that the mind/brain duality was a valid concept. He also suggested the presence of perceptrons that are units of perception interacting with neurons at certain parts in the brain. When one looks at the new theories of consciousness, it seems that all hardcore neuroscientists (like Crick and Edelman) have abandoned the idea of B/M duality. Are there any new philosophical frameworks that support the B/M duality. Is it philosophically plausible for consciousness to be an emergent property of neuronal interactions? What's the status of this whole issue?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-24-2003, 10:06 PM	#3
jpbrooks Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chicago Posts: 774	Well, this is one that I'm not really certain about, but Rorty's stance on metaphysics has been classified as "antirealistic". But he seems to acknowledge the reality of both body and mind. So he might (loosely) be described as a dualist. And the problem of how the interaction between mind and body is supposed to occur is the main problem for dualism.

02-24-2003, 10:37 PM	#4
jpbrooks Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Chicago Posts: 774	And as far as philosophical frameworks are concerned, David Chalmers comes to mind.

02-24-2003, 11:24 PM	#5
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	IMO consciousness is an emergent property of genetic promoting like the basic scaffolding of the brain was genetically determined, and individualized consciousness emerged later.

02-25-2003, 03:56 AM	#7
MyKell Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Amman, Jordan Posts: 258	I am aware of the current theories of consciousness in Neuroscience, namely those of Edelman, Crick, LeDoux... The all seem to focus on global synaptic interaction and Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) It remains that none of them suggests anything to solve the problem of qualia (the redness of red, and the painfulness of pain). Edelman calls the problem an untangled knot. I was just wanting to see if anyone knew a philosophical framework that is comparable to those natural scientific framework. I am a naturalist myself... but I'm just frustrated with qualia I guess..

02-25-2003, 07:35 AM	#10
MyKell Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Amman, Jordan Posts: 258	Oxymoron, The mystery is in how matter becomes imagination in the first place. What are the physical processes that give rise to qualia, and on what hierarchial level should people study their properties? Abrupt, thanks for the advice. Since we are talking about Dennett, did you read his new book, "Freedom Evolves"? I can't find any reviews for it on amazon.com

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.