Interaction Problem Involving the Soul and Body

[JonathanL]

You mean as opposed to your presupposition, unsupported by sound evidence that a person’s mind continues even after the death of that person’s brain.

I've never claimed that it's anything but a presupposition. What I've claimed is that your assertion that the mind does not survive the death of the brain is also a presupposition supported by just as little evidence.

If you are claiming that Homo sapiens have an everlasting mind why wouldn’t other sentient creatures, such as our predecessors (e.g. Homo erectus) not have everlasting minds also? What’s so special about us? Wouldn't you like to mingle with Neanderthals in heaven?

Why are you so intent on harping on about this irrelevant red herring? I've stated numerous times already that I'm not claiming previous human species don't have everlasting minds. I'm not making any sort of claim about them what so ever, because it's completely irrelevant. Maybe they have everlasting minds, maybe they don't. It doesn't make any difference at all.

Not so. There is undeniable evidence of the brain affecting the ‘mind’. I know of no such evidence of the mind existing minus the brain.

You also know of no evidence of the mind ceasing to exist with the death of the brain.

What has “zero evidence” is your claim that the mind survives the life of the material brain.

I've never claimed I have any scientific evidence for the mind surviving the brain. I'm just pointing out the complete lack of evidence for your own claims. Your claim that the mind is so strongly connected to the brain that it ceases to exist with the death of the brain that is.

No it’s an argument from ignorance in that you assume an immaterial mind exists due to lack of evidence (at this stage) of how the mind functions vis-à-vis the brain.

My argument is that a simple analysis of a mind we can pretty clearly see it doesn't fit the criteria necessary to qualify as a physical entity/object. It's made of neither energy, nor matter, but of something else, that's not possible for our senses, or any measuring devices to pick up. It's not simply a question of not being able to measure or study the mind at this stage. The only way for science to currently explain the mind is to try and reduce it to a set of complex interactions between the neurons in our brains, leading to some sort of "illusion"*, which is effectively saying that the mind doesn't exist at all, which is not an explanation at all, but an "explaining away" of the mind.


*which is quite ironical, given that you need a mind to be able to experience illusions in the first place.

[Tassman]

I've never claimed that it's anything but a presupposition. What I've claimed is that your assertion that the mind does not survive the death of the brain is also a presupposition supported by just as little evidence.

There is considerable evidence of the dependence of the mind on the brain; there is no evidence of the mind existing without the brain.

Why are you so intent on harping on about this irrelevant red herring? I've stated numerous times already that I'm not claiming previous human species don't have everlasting minds. I'm not making any sort of claim about them what so ever, because it's completely irrelevant. Maybe they have everlasting minds, maybe they don't. It doesn't make any difference at all.

It’s entirely relevant to understand the biology and mental capacity of our human predecessors and fellow hominoids (i.e. apes) in order to better understand ourselves.

You also know of no evidence of the mind ceasing to exist with the death of the brain.

There is no good reason to suppose that the mind continues to exist following the death of the brain.

I've never claimed I have any scientific evidence for the mind surviving the brain.

Then why make the claim in the first place?

I'm just pointing out the complete lack of evidence for your own claims. Your claim that the mind is so strongly connected to the brain that it ceases to exist with the death of the brain that is.

The demonstrable fact is that the mind is so strongly connected to the brain that any alterations to the brain via trauma or dementia etc, can have a major impact upon the mind.

My argument is that a simple analysis of a mind we can pretty clearly see it doesn't fit the criteria necessary to qualify as a physical entity/object. It's made of neither energy, nor matter, but of something else, that's not possible for our senses, or any measuring devices to pick up. It's not simply a question of not being able to measure or study the mind at this stage. The only way for science to currently explain the mind is to try and reduce it to a set of complex interactions between the neurons in our brains, leading to some sort of "illusion"*, which is effectively saying that the mind doesn't exist at all, which is not an explanation at all, but an "explaining away" of the mind.

Again, as I say, this is an Argument from Ignorance. You’ve taken the position, without good reason, that an immaterial mind exists due to lack of evidence (at this stage) that it doesn’t.

[JonathanL]

There is considerable evidence of the dependence of the mind on the brain; there is no evidence of the mind existing without the brain.

"The dependence of the mind on the brain" is a far too generic statement. Dependent in what way? If you say something like "dependent on the brain for sense data to turn into sensory experience", I might just not disagree with you. If you say that there is considerable evidence that the mind's existence is dependent on the brain however, I'm going to disagree with you.

It’s entirely relevant to understand the biology and mental capacity of our human predecessors and fellow hominoids (i.e. apes) in order to better understand ourselves.

Perhaps. But in this particular case it doesn't matter one lick. You won't get closer to getting an answer to the question whether our minds are immaterial by pondering the nature of our human predecessors and fellow hominoids.

There is no good reason to suppose that the mind continues to exist following the death of the brain.

No good reason to suppose that it doesn't either, so it all comes down to worldview and presupposition.

Then why make the claim in the first place?

Because I don't believe you have to have scientific evidence for a claim in order to be justified in making it.

The demonstrable fact is that the mind is so strongly connected to the brain that any alterations to the brain via trauma or dementia etc, can have a major impact upon the mind.

Like I've said several times already, that doesn't show that the mind cannot exist without the brain, it just shows that there's a connection/relationship.

Again, as I say, this is an Argument from Ignorance. You’ve taken the position, without good reason, that an immaterial mind exists due to lack of evidence (at this stage) that it doesn’t.

No, I've taken the position that an immaterial mind exists due to the fact that it doesn't fulfill the criteria necessary to be material. It doesn't take up any space, it doesn't have any mass, it doesn't consist of any atomic or sub-atomic particles, and it's not a form of energy either. But it still clearly exists, which leads to the only logical conclusion, namely that matter and energy isn't the only thing that exists, and that the mind is one of the things in the world that consists of neither matter, nor energy.

[JimL]

Many comatose patients report being consciously aware of what is going on around them but unable to respond.

Then they are not comatose.

There are also reports of children with hydrocephalitis where large portions of their brain has been destroyed but they still function normally.

Like I said, consciousness has been traced to specific regions of the brain. Many people can have serious brain damage and still be conscious, but if those specific areas related to consciousness are damged, that's when they lose consciousness.

But like I said, I believe the brain is the interface between the soul and the body. When the brain is damaged, it affects how the soul or mind works too.

Well, I know that's what you believe, but there is no evidence of that, nor does it make sense. If there were a distinct mind then a physical brain would be superfluous.

[Sparko]

Then they are not comatose.


Like I said, consciousness has been traced to specific regions of the brain. Many people can have serious brain damage and still be conscious, but if those specific areas related to consciousness are damged, that's when they lose consciousness.


Well, I know that's what you believe, but there is no evidence of that, nor does it make sense. If there were a distinct mind then a physical brain would be superfluous.

Jim, stop showing your ignorance.

1. Yes coma patients can be aware and still be in a coma.
2. How can there be a normal mind if 98% of the brain is missing if the mind is a function of the brain?
3. Even if the mind is generated by the brain, the mind is NOT merely the brain firing neurons. It is a subjective phenomena, where you are aware of your own consciousness and mind. Nobody else can see your mind or detect your consciousness. They can't take a scan of your mind and see where "you" are. This is why psychology is not a physical science like neurology and why neurologists don't deal with the mind. If the brain was the mind we wouldn't need psychology.

Also you never answered me: Scientists claim that one day they will be able to upload a person's mind into a computer and they can live forever. Do you think that is possible?

[JimL]

Jim, stop showing your ignorance.

1. Yes coma patients can be aware and still be in a coma.
2. How can there be a normal mind if 98% of the brain is missing if the mind is a function of the brain?
3. Even if the mind is generated by the brain, the mind is NOT merely the brain firing neurons. It is a subjective phenomena, where you are aware of your own consciousness and mind. Nobody else can see your mind or detect your consciousness. They can't take a scan of your mind and see where "you" are. This is why psychology is not a physical science like neurology and why neurologists don't deal with the mind. If the brain was the mind we wouldn't need psychology.

Also you never answered me: Scientists claim that one day they will be able to upload a person's mind into a computer and they can live forever. Do you think that is possible?

No, of course I do not believe that. As you know, I do not believe that their is a distinct mind, or soul as you would have it, that is separate from the brain and physical body, so even should there be a way to upload information somehow gleaned from your brain into a computer, it wouldn't be you living for ever, just like a doppleganger, i.e. an exact replica of you, in another universe say, would not be you.

[Tassman]

"The dependence of the mind on the brain" is a far too generic statement. Dependent in what way? If you say something like "dependent on the brain for sense data to turn into sensory experience", I might just not disagree with you. If you say that there is considerable evidence that the mind's existence is dependent on the brain however, I'm going to disagree with you.

You need to address the fact that the mind is directly affected by changes within the brain. If you have a severe stroke, your mind does not function as before. If you become demented, due to Alzheimer’s disease, your mind will be severely diminished. Is it this diminished mind that survives the death of the brain, or is the “real you” lurking within somehow. Which is the “real immaterial you”?

Perhaps. But in this particular case it doesn't matter one lick. You won't get closer to getting an answer to the question whether our minds are immaterial by pondering the nature of our human predecessors and fellow hominoids.

We need to ask about the likelihood of human predecessors and fellow hominoids possessing immaterial minds that survive the death of the brain. Frankly, I think this is unlikely just as it is for us Homo sapiens.

No good reason to suppose that it doesn't either, so it all comes down to worldview and presupposition.

There is very good reason for not supposing that the mind continues to exist following the death of the brain; there is no evidence that it does.

Because I don't believe you have to have scientific evidence for a claim in order to be justified in making it.

We have demonstrable scientific evidence of the mind’s connection with the brain; there is no evidence of the mind existing without such a connection.

Like I've said several times already, that doesn't show that the mind cannot exist without the brain, it just shows that there's a connection/relationship.

Yes it shows that there is a “connection/relationship”, it doesn’t show that there is any more than that.

No, I've taken the position that an immaterial mind exists due to the fact that it doesn't fulfill the criteria necessary to be material. It doesn't take up any space, it doesn't have any mass, it doesn't consist of any atomic or sub-atomic particles, and it's not a form of energy either. But it still clearly exists, which leads to the only logical conclusion, namely that matter and energy isn't the only thing that exists, and that the mind is one of the things in the world that consists of neither matter, nor energy.

Nor is there any reason to think it exists as a separate entity from the brain.

[Starlight]

Scientists claim that one day they will be able to upload a person's mind into a computer and they can live forever. Do you think that is possible?

I have always viewed that as an interesting possibility to think about. My general view is that we do not currently have enough knowledge about what consciousness is, or what makes 'you' you, to say one way or another whether a computerized copy of a person's neural patterns would be (a) them, (b) an exact duplicate of them, or (c) nothing like them at all. Certainly if we were able to conduct such an experiment in the future we might be able to distinguish c from the other two possibilities which would be interesting.

Depending on which version of dualism or physicalism is real, a computer simulation of neural pathways might be different to actual neural pathways, in a similar way to how a radio plays the music it is receiving because it interacts with the incoming radio-waves but a computer simulation of a radio's internals produces nothing because the radio waves don't interact with the computer. A particularly fun possibility that dualism could potentially produce is that maybe if we were to create a second physical body with a copied neural pattern then both would connect to the same mind, and thus you would be able to have/control two bodies simultaneously! Much like two radios that were tuned to the same station would play identical music. Maybe then I could read two books at once. Or, perhaps, whatever action I took, both bodies would take the same action - e.g. both lifting their left hand simultaneously... that would be much less beneficial.

[JimL]

I have always viewed that as an interesting possibility to think about. My general view is that we do not currently have enough knowledge about what consciousness is, or what makes 'you' you, to say one way or another whether a computerized copy of a person's neural patterns would be (a) them, (b) an exact duplicate of them, or (c) nothing like them at all. Certainly if we were able to conduct such an experiment in the future we might be able to distinguish c from the other two possibilities which would be interesting.

Depending on which version of dualism or physicalism is real, a computer simulation of neural pathways might be different to actual neural pathways, in a similar way to how a radio plays the music it is receiving because it interacts with the incoming radio-waves but a computer simulation of a radio's internals produces nothing because the radio waves don't interact with the computer. A particularly fun possibility that dualism could potentially produce is that maybe if we were to create a second physical body with a copied neural pattern then both would connect to the same mind, and thus you would be able to have/control two bodies simultaneously! Much like two radios that were tuned to the same station would play identical music. Maybe then I could read two books at once. Or, perhaps, whatever action I took, both bodies would take the same action - e.g. both lifting their left hand simultaneously... that would be much less beneficial.

How about if we could extend that idea and upload 1000 physical bodies, or a million, with the same neural patterns? They might think alike, but I wouldn't say they were the same person/mind.

[Starlight]

How about if we could extend that idea and upload 1000 physical bodies, or a million, with the same neural patterns? They might think alike, but I wouldn't say they were the same person/mind.

Well, if the view that what makes your mind "you" is the neural patterns turns out to be true, and if it turns out that these can be perfectly replicated by a computer, then if there are 1000 computer copies of your neural pattern I would tend to say 1000 copies of you have been made.

Likewise, if we were able to invent the Star Trek technology where a "teleporter" takes a complete scan of you, sends that information to the other end, makes a perfect replicator of you at the other end, then destroys you body at the starting end, then I would tend to say that "you" have been teleported, rather than saying "you" have been killed and a clone created.

But, I am a dualist, so I find it more interesting to speculate about the possible experiments we could do in future that would rule in or out different types of dualism. e.g. if you tune two radios to the same frequency they perform identical actions (play the same music) because what dictates their behavior is what the radio station itself is broadcasting and the radio itself is only a conduit for that. Nothing particularly interesting (well, apart from the physics of it) happens in the radio itself to make the one radio different to another radio, all the data is determined at the radio station end. So the two separate devices behave identically. They are two physical devices connecting to the "same" immaterial radio waves coming from the same radio station. All that changing the device controls is to which radio station it's tuned and how clear the sound on it is. If you were to model the internals of the radio in your computer you'd get zero behavior, because the computer itself does not receive the immaterial radio waves that are crucial to the radio's operation: It is the physical interaction between the parts of the radio and the environment external to it that make the radio play its music, not those parts in and of themselves. So, if the brain involves any sort of quantum-physical connection to any Universe of the Mind, for wont of a better term, the computer simulation of the neurons firing will be for naught because the computer itself isn't physically set up in the correct way to create the exchange between the physical and mental universes that give the mind its function.

A different dualistic model could be analogous to going to the same website on two different computers: The website itself is a functional entity that notes the differences between different incoming connections (unlike a radio station) and can respond differently to each, replying to one "you are now logged in as Starlight" and replying to another "invalid username and password" etc, and the client computer itself can do all sorts of computations and send many and various different messages back and forth to the server. So even though we might have the same bank and both be doing our online-banking simultaneously on the same website, you can't see my account information and when I transfer my money it's not in your account. And, under that sort of model of the mind-body interaction, you're going to see some quite different behavior if you start duplicating physical bodies with identical neural patterns or you start "teleporting" people or creating computer copies of people's brains.

And while some of these things are a long, long, long way away (e.g. teleportation), computer modelling of very simple neural patterns for extremely simple animals is already here - one of the simplest worms has had its neural pathways fully mapped and scientists are beginning to use computer models of its neural firing to mimic its behavior, and there are efforts to do the same for mice or at least a decent segment of a mouse's brain. If it turns out that a computer modelled mouse displays the same behavior (including running through various types of computer-modeled mazes in various ways) as real mice have been observed to do, that will be very very interesting, as it will imply that mouse brains aren't dualistic, as their behavior is fully explained from their physical components alone.

[Tassman]

Well, if the view that what makes your mind "you" is the neural patterns turns out to be true, and if it turns out that these can be perfectly replicated by a computer, then if there are 1000 computer copies of your neural pattern I would tend to say 1000 copies of you have been made.

I agree. Neuroscientists have devised a scheme for mind-uploading centuries in the future.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/neuroscien...-in-the-future

Mind uploading is hypothetically possible via a process of scanning the mental state (including long-term memory and "self") of a particular brain substrate and copying it to a computer. If this is done there is no reason why we cannot be uploaded. Although, this will be well beyond our time.

[JonathanL]

You need to address the fact that the mind is directly affected by changes within the brain. If you have a severe stroke, your mind does not function as before. If you become demented, due to Alzheimer’s disease, your mind will be severely diminished. Is it this diminished mind that survives the death of the brain, or is the “real you” lurking within somehow. Which is the “real immaterial you”?

I don't know. My guess is that what you call the mind being "severy diminished" isn't actually the mind being diminished per se, but simply the brain not being able to communicate with the mind properly due to brain damage. If this is true then the "diminished" mind (which if my guess is true isn't "diminished" at all, but "simply" a mind that is unable to access information from the brain it had previously been able to) is what survives the death off the brain. Whether or not the mind is then restored to a "pre-diminished" state after death is something I also don't know.

We need to ask about the likelihood of human predecessors and fellow hominoids possessing immaterial minds that survive the death of the brain. Frankly, I think this is unlikely just as it is for us Homo sapiens.

It's irrelevant, because whatever the case might be with other hominoids, or human predecessors a simple analysis of your own mind clearly shows that it's immaterial.

There is very good reason for not supposing that the mind continues to exist following the death of the brain; there is no evidence that it does.

There are cases where absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is not one of those cases, unless you can give a probable explanation as to why it is that we should have scientific evidence of a mind surviving the death of the body when per definition of the word "immaterial" there would be no way of detecting an immaterial mind that is no longer connected to a physical body with any sort of scientific equipment. The only potential way to "see" these disembodied minds would be through ways that would not be admissible as scientific evidence, such as clarvoyance (which I'm not saying even exists in the first place), or God opening your eyes and revealing them to you.

We have demonstrable scientific evidence of the mind’s connection with the brain; there is no evidence of the mind existing without such a connection.

Again, due to the very definition of immaterial we shouldn't expect to have any scientific evidence of the mind existing without the brain. It's not a question that can be answered with science.

Yes it shows that there is a “connection/relationship”, it doesn’t show that there is any more than that.

If it doesn't show that there is any more than that there is a connection/relationship then it follows that it doesn't show that the minds existence is dependent on the existence of the brain.

Nor is there any reason to think it exists as a separate entity from the brain.

Depends on what you mean by separate. It's clearly separate in the sense that it's a different entity from the brain, and is not material (for the reasons I laid out in my previous post). Whether or not you believe it can exist separately from the brain is another question, and your answer to that question ultimately comes down to presupposition.

[JimL]

Well, if the view that what makes your mind "you" is the neural patterns turns out to be true, and if it turns out that these can be perfectly replicated by a computer, then if there are 1000 computer copies of your neural pattern I would tend to say 1000 copies of you have been made.

Likewise, if we were able to invent the Star Trek technology where a "teleporter" takes a complete scan of you, sends that information to the other end, makes a perfect replicator of you at the other end, then destroys you body at the starting end, then I would tend to say that "you" have been teleported, rather than saying "you" have been killed and a clone created.

But, I am a dualist, so I find it more interesting to speculate about the possible experiments we could do in future that would rule in or out different types of dualism. e.g. if you tune two radios to the same frequency they perform identical actions (play the same music) because what dictates their behavior is what the radio station itself is broadcasting and the radio itself is only a conduit for that. Nothing particularly interesting (well, apart from the physics of it) happens in the radio itself to make the one radio different to another radio, all the data is determined at the radio station end. So the two separate devices behave identically. They are two physical devices connecting to the "same" immaterial radio waves coming from the same radio station. All that changing the device controls is to which radio station it's tuned and how clear the sound on it is. If you were to model the internals of the radio in your computer you'd get zero behavior, because the computer itself does not receive the immaterial radio waves that are crucial to the radio's operation: It is the physical interaction between the parts of the radio and the environment external to it that make the radio play its music, not those parts in and of themselves. So, if the brain involves any sort of quantum-physical connection to any Universe of the Mind, for wont of a better term, the computer simulation of the neurons firing will be for naught because the computer itself isn't physically set up in the correct way to create the exchange between the physical and mental universes that give the mind its function.

A different dualistic model could be analogous to going to the same website on two different computers: The website itself is a functional entity that notes the differences between different incoming connections (unlike a radio station) and can respond differently to each, replying to one "you are now logged in as Starlight" and replying to another "invalid username and password" etc, and the client computer itself can do all sorts of computations and send many and various different messages back and forth to the server. So even though we might have the same bank and both be doing our online-banking simultaneously on the same website, you can't see my account information and when I transfer my money it's not in your account. And, under that sort of model of the mind-body interaction, you're going to see some quite different behavior if you start duplicating physical bodies with identical neural patterns or you start "teleporting" people or creating computer copies of people's brains.

And while some of these things are a long, long, long way away (e.g. teleportation), computer modelling of very simple neural patterns for extremely simple animals is already here - one of the simplest worms has had its neural pathways fully mapped and scientists are beginning to use computer models of its neural firing to mimic its behavior, and there are efforts to do the same for mice or at least a decent segment of a mouse's brain. If it turns out that a computer modelled mouse displays the same behavior (including running through various types of computer-modeled mazes in various ways) as real mice have been observed to do, that will be very very interesting, as it will imply that mouse brains aren't dualistic, as their behavior is fully explained from their physical components alone.

That may all be possible some day, I don't really know anything much about that, but I still wouldn't say that the neural patterns alone is what makes or defines a person. It may define his mind, but we are more than just our minds, we are the bodies that house those minds as well. There is a hypothetical concerning the multiverse in which there are dopplegangers, exact replica's of ourselves existing in multiple universes, but I wouldn't say that they are all the same person, if one of them should die, then he/she is dead.

[JimL]

I don't know. My guess is that what you call the mind being "severy diminished" isn't actually the mind being diminished per se, but simply the brain not being able to communicate with the mind properly due to brain damage. If this is true then the "diminished" mind (which if my guess is true isn't "diminished" at all, but "simply" a mind that is unable to access information from the brain it had previously been able to) is what survives the death off the brain. Whether or not the mind is then restored to a "pre-diminished" state after death is something I also don't know.



It's irrelevant, because whatever the case might be with other hominoids, or human predecessors a simple analysis of your own mind clearly shows that it's immaterial.



There are cases where absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is not one of those cases, unless you can give a probable explanation as to why it is that we should have scientific evidence of a mind surviving the death of the body when per definition of the word "immaterial" there would be no way of detecting an immaterial mind that is no longer connected to a physical body with any sort of scientific equipment. The only potential way to "see" these disembodied minds would be through ways that would not be admissible as scientific evidence, such as clarvoyance (which I'm not saying even exists in the first place), or God opening your eyes and revealing them to you.



Again, due to the very definition of immaterial we shouldn't expect to have any scientific evidence of the mind existing without the brain. It's not a question that can be answered with science.



If it doesn't show that there is any more than that there is a connection/relationship then it follows that it doesn't show that the minds existence is dependent on the existence of the brain.



Depends on what you mean by separate. It's clearly separate in the sense that it's a different entity from the brain, and is not material (for the reasons I laid out in my previous post). Whether or not you believe it can exist separately from the brain is another question, and your answer to that question ultimately comes down to presupposition.

If you think that you are seperate from your body, that you can exist without your body, then why don't you just leave it, go on vacation from it for a while?

[JonathanL]

If you think that you are seperate from your body, that you can exist without your body, then why don't you just leave it, go on vacation from it for a while?

Not even you are this stupid, so stop pretending like you are.