Laurentius

The Mind supersedes the Brain.
As soon as I joined this forum I was stunned at the nonchalance with which the Mind was dismissed as completely reducible to the brain and sheer physical laws. I am starting this thread as a sketch of the argument that, at least for the Secular Humanist, the Mind is supposed to supersede (=sit higher than) its partial material support, the Brain.

What is the Mind?
I've decided not to refer to phylosophical definitions for fear I might come across an already ideologized one, so I've just looked for the Webster explanation, thinking it will make a neutral and widely accepted account of what MIND stands for:

mind
(a) the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons;
(b) the conscious mental events and capabilities in an organism;
(c) the organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism.

At a first glance, I'd say that it is quite obvious that the Mind supersedes the Brain. However, I am going to elaborate later on these acceptions. For the time being I'll just post the already launched chart showing my rough perception of how the matter may be organized into levels from the inert to the self-reflecting.

__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
......>......................|(a)INERT MATTER
non self-conserving....|A rock may well fit in
non will-bearing.........|this category.
non self-reflecting......|Physical laws only
...............................|govern at this level.
..............................|
..............................|
..............................|
__________________________________________________
......>......................|(b)BASIC LIVING MATTER
self-conserving..........|A plant may well fit in
non will-bearing.........|this category.
non self-reflecting......|Physical laws + laws of
..............................|the living govern here.
..............................|
..............................|
..............................|
__________________________________________________
......>.......................|(c)INFERIOR LIVING MATTER
self-conserving..........|A cat may well fit in
will-bearing................|this category.
non self-reflecting......|Physical laws + laws of
..............................|the living + laws of the
..............................|psyche govern here.
..............................|
..............................|
__________________________________________________
......>......................|(d)SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER
self-conserving..........|A man may well fit in
will-bearing...............| in this category.
self-reflecting............|Physical laws + laws of
..............................|the living + laws of the
..............................|psyche + laws of
..............................|consciousness govern here.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________


(a)INERT MATTER
Inert matter is not inert in the physical sense. It is though indifferent to the forces that are exercised on it. Entities are not preserved in their existing form due to an inner drive but because of external universal laws to which inert matterial structures never oppose on their own.

(b)BASIC LIVING MATTER
Basic living matter tends to conserve its structure against natural laws. There is a tendency that entities should increase their degree of organization, which goes against the pervasing natural trend toward higher entropy. Entities of this level succeed in conserving and multiplying themselves.

(c)INFERIOR LIVING MATTER
Inferior living matter manage to employ resources of the environment more freely in order that they should ensure their own preservation and multiplication. Their inner hormonal and nervous systems allow a comparatively higher level of complexity, which results in the ability of gathering, storing, analyizing and employing larger amounts of information necessary to achieve the goals mentioned above.

(d)SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER
Superior living matter show the highest independence in using resources and ability in emplyoing information, which translates in the greatest adaptability on earth. Not only are they able to view themselves in the environment they inhabit, recognizing themselves as distinct entities, but they can also attempt to view the environment and themselves from the presumed point of view of another entity of the same kind, which give them the most effective comparative autonomy and individuality.
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________


This hierarchy has multiple implications, among which an important one is that it shows how "objects" belonging to different levels differ from one another in qualitatively more significant ways than "objects" at the same layer do.

AVE


[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

bd-from-kg

Perhaps you could give us a hint as to what "problem" you imagine you have "stated" here.

Jayhawker Soule

... and I've just looked for the Webster explanations of supersede, e.g.:

• to replace in power, authority, effectiveness, acceptance, use, etc. ...
• to set aside or cause to be set aside as void, useless, or obsolete, ...
• to succeed to the position, function, office, etc., of; supplant.

Perhaps, in the course of clarifying your problem, you could demonstrate by doing so sans brain.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Francois Tremblay

Isn't that what he's already doing ?

IslamExposed.Com

I believe we do not know or understand 99.9% of the functions of our human body.

We are not sophisticated enough nor advanced enough scientifically to make fundamental decisions on the subject. I therefore view any attempt to explain the nature of the mind-body and brain dichotomy as dangerous.

let's leave it for the future generations to deal with.

Laurentius

supercede supersede
This word, meaning to replace, originally meant "to sit higher" than, from Latin sedere, "to sit." In the Eighteenth Century, rich people were often carried about as they sat in "sedan" chairs (see <a href="http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/supercede.html" target="_blank">here</a>)
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________

the chess game parable

._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
The common chess game requires the well-known chequered board with 64 black and white squares, and two sets of 16 pieces each, one set black and the other white.

Although they are traditionally made of wood, both the chessboard and the pieces can be manufactured by employing a wide range of materials, provided the basic functions and distinctions are preserved.

The pieces may stand on a simple chessboard, or a magnetic board can be employed for the pieces not to slide easily (i.e. accidentally) from one square to another.

As a rule, the two players move the pieces by picking one up from its square and placing it to a new one.

Players may lose pieces, which are removed from the board.

Moves are made alternately, in a continuous sequence, until the game is declared ended.

etc.
._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|
The chess game could not be played unless particular physical requirements (such as space, time, gravity, etc.) were fulfilled; yet, they fail to determine the essential nature of the chess game.

The chess game consists of rules, relationships and developments that institute a different reality, which - although propping on the material - escapes any natural explanations.

Stemming from the hard reality of matter, the chess game manages to build a spiritual realm whose functioning and organization have little, if any, material grounds.

There is a story of the chessplayer prisoner. The chessplayer prisoner was thrown into a dungeon where he had no connection to the outside world. The total isolation usually drove inmates insane in less than a year. The chessplayer prisoner managed to preserve his sanity by dayly playing chess (mentally) against an imaginary rival.
._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|

Analogically, the Mind supersedes the Brain.
AVE

A3

Laurentius,
The Tabernacle of Israel, built with very precise instructions is a replica of the human mind. Every detail is relevant, the three rooms or sections, the use of each, the materials, construction and even the colours. Also the furniture and where and how it is placed and used. Might be of interest to read "The Tabernacle of Israel" by Rt. Rev G. de Charms
Libr. of Congr. # 77-76583

Christopher Lord

Before this can go further, I think you need to lay out what you think the mind is, and how it is seperate from the physical world.

I say they are not seperate. The mind is a procedural expression of the complex arrangement of nurons. This is NOT to say it is 'just' matter. It is simply saying that it is 'ultimately' matter.

This position is mesurable, falsifiable, and congruent with what we can observe. Someone (such as yourself) who is proposing a second level to the mind must provide evidence for this. The mind obviously exists but as far as we can tell NOT seperate from matter.

This is similar to the way software on a computer exists, non-seperate from the hardware, but still expressing things non-existant in the hardware. It does this through a procedural expression of its complexity, NOT magic.

NialScorva

And yet, chess is learned empirically, by studying the movements of matter inacted by other people. There is no spiritual insight that defines chess, rather it's the watching and learning through physical senses to see material occurances which allow chess to be learned. For that prisoner, he was only capable of the mental aspect after years of empirical playing. So, it seems that the spiritual essence of chess is subservient to the physical essence, in that the former cannot be known without the latter.

Such is the problem with spiritual worlds. We can define it to be knowledge, but without a physical referent how do we have any certainty? That same prisoner, as he went insane, how can he be sure that he's keeping track of pieces properly? In my more obsessive periods, I've had dreams of playing computer games, where they seemed completely consistent and correct, until I awoke. If there is such a spiritual essence, then it's so ephemeral and fickle with it's rules as to be useless as to establishing a consistent truth. And if the only way to make such spiritual events recognizable, learnable, and communicable is through material events such as language, how are we justified in claiming that they are "true" in some sense. Why not just stick with what's reliable?

After all, that's what skepticism is about. It's not about determining "real" truth, it's about determining minimal expelanation that fits. Ontology is an optimization problem, not a exhaustive proof, and duality adds nothing.

Francois Tremblay

I think the brain supersedes the mind. Proof : if you damage the brain, you damage the mind. With or without a chess board !

Think about it, that is, if you still have a brain to do so (^_^)