Mind & Body? Apparantly not...

Dades

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2772-2251248,00.html

Just finishing an article from last week's Sunday Times (above) about the current work in neuroscience and human behavior. In short the research basically suggests that it's the physical characteristics of your brain that determine who you are as a person behavorally. That is, what you do and say, haow you act - your morality - is down to the shape of your brain.

As will as just be an interesting science, it does raise questions (to say the least) in relation to the "free will" discussions we've seen recently, and of course the notion that mind is seperate from the body.

No doubt many here are already comfortable with the idea that:

Your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.

Anyways - my nerve cells need another glass of wine.

Zillah

Yeah but the soul dictates the shape of the brain!


But more seriously, I've always believed as much.

legspin

Sounds a bit like a modern version of phrenology

Zillah

Of course you'd say that, you have the brain-pan of a coach-handler!



It is a bit like it, but based on science rather than nothing. Did you read the article?

legspin

Zillah wrote:

Of course you'd say that, you have the brain-pan of a coach-handler!

Now now!:p

Zillah wrote:

It is a bit like it, but based on science rather than nothing. Did you read the article?

I did and it does make a good argument. I am just always a little suspicious of anything that comes from the News Corp stable

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

No doubt many here are already comfortable with the idea that your sense of personal identity and free will are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.

Does this mean I'm hardwired to dislike Creationists? That would explain a lot. Good article, but I don't like the signs of a bandwagon starting to roll - it smells like Social Darwinism, and even more like Brave New World.

Have you considered posting this in the Christian forum, or is that in bad taste?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Does this mean I'm hardwired to dislike Creationists? That would explain a lot. Good article, but I don't like the signs of a bandwagon starting to roll - it smells like Social Darwinism, and even more like Brave New World.

Wouldn't be too worried about the knock-on effects for some time. Anyone watch "Equilibrium" last week? The population all take drugs to numb their emotions - as emotions as the cause of all of humanities problems. (People who don't - are called "sense offenders").

Possibly also the unpopularity of these scientific claims within religious societies will dampen it's effect.

Scofflaw wrote:

Have you considered posting this in the Christian forum, or is that in bad taste?

I'm not really a Christian botherer! If something piques my interest, or bothers me I'll engage there. But feel free to start a thread there on this yourself.

stevejazzx

What is missing from the article is the context of the evolution of the human brain through time. As the first man on earth was essentially a savage his ancestors learned control of impulse was essential to survival. The brain evolved.
The choice of right and wrong is something learned by the brain not something innate, therefore a selective impulse.

Civilisation is almost wholly dependent on morality or programming the human brain to act normal, normal here meaning a genearalised sense of what society proposes good decent society members are, hard working, honest, family people, conformists, law abiding consumers.

The greatest conspiracy theory of modernity is that the human brain is programmed to be a perfect consumer and everything else (work family etc) necessitates this.

Now the scientific approach to the brain as mollecular ensemble which can destabalise seems entirely valid but using this as a catch all for human behaviour seems defunct as thousands of years civilisation don't disapear in an instant(except possibly in extreme cases, ie excessive damge to the frontal lobe etc) so essentailly what this leaves us with is a mix of physicality (the brain s makeup) and emotion ( programmed, learned feelings , morality).

The imagined side (emotion) lives within the physical side (cerebral cortex) and causes conscience etc. The physical side grows with imagined side slowly allowing programming until an individual has a sense of right and wrong.

From my understanding of the subject, tests have shown that stabilising childern with brain defects, or disadvantaged childern from high crime societies and inducing them into so called normal societies that the 'wiring' of the brain changes and morality is learned, so while I would agree with the article a lot it doesn't seem to allow for or talk about how negatives brain structures can be changed or reprogrammed/manipulated.

Asiaprod

stevejazzx wrote:

The brain evolved.
The choice of right and wrong is something learned by the brain not something innate, therefore a selective impulse.

Thank you, that was a very informative post.

stevejazzx

Asiaprod wrote:

Thank you, that was a very informative post.

No thank you for the generalised sarcastic comment and using that quote out of context of the rest the paragraph.

Incidentally the idea of emotions or feelings (morality,the idea of right and wrong) as something simply learned by the brain and not something inherently present in humans was my argumentive standing point in that post and feel that your light sarcasm alluding to it's triviality is misplaced in the fact that you fail to fully understand the idea.

Dades

I must be getting old having not thought Asiaprod was being sarcastic.

TBH I think I fail to fully understand what it is you are saying too. I don't think the article is discounting evolution, just focusing on the consequences of the cases in question as they apply to today's understanding of the brain.

Feel free to clarify.

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

I must be getting old having not thought Asiaprod was being sarcastic.

TBH I think I fail to fully understand what it is you are saying too. I don't think the article is discounting evolution, just focusing on the consequences of the cases in question as they apply to today's understanding of the brain.

Feel free to clarify.

I didn't register the sarcasm either.

And I also thought the post was rambling and directionless, I came away not having much of an idea what he was getting at.

Beruthiel

The Atheist wrote:

I must be getting old having not thought Asiaprod was being sarcastic.

There's a pair of us then, because I also thought he was just thanking him

I don't supposes they supply pics so I can work out how fab my brain is?

stevejazzx

The Atheist wrote:

TBH I think I fail to fully understand what it is you are saying too. I don't think the article is discounting evolution, just focusing on the consequences of the cases in question as they apply to today's understanding of the brain.

Feel free to clarify.

I'll try, it's tricky.

The article doesn't discount evolution but rahter leaves out it's importance in the equation. Prehistoric man with mild brain abnormalities etc. acted purely from impulse, increased (possibly) by a brain defect, this was a simple process with no internal struggle. Evolution has tamed the impulses in the human brain.
So generationally the human brain is more stable, considering better health increased lifespans etc. And as we progress scientifically we begin to understand more about abstract things like mind and conscience.
So someone with a brain defect can manipulate the pysical defect with abstract thought or excercise. There is a struggle of mind and matter if you will.
The article was claiming that the physicality of brain solely dictated behaviour patterns whereas I was saying that because of evolution and the development of compex abstract structures inside the brain are created and influence the concrete side, i.e the shape of the brain is no longer the catch all for control of the body and it's actions, humans have a conscience.
Now I understand that conditions such as schizophrenia(sp?) and other serious brain issues can leave individuals with little influence over the physical side but the contention of the article dealt with regualr peolpe, therefore those learnt emotions come into place denying impulse.

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote:

And I also thought the post was rambling and directionless, I came away not having much of an idea what he was getting at.

It was no doubt rambling I agree, hopefully the follow up (above ) clarifys it a bit. Trying to articulate complex idea s into discernable language during work aint easy!


PS
Hope next time i post a sarcastic remark about someones post all the mod miss it, however something tells me that it is a rather selctive process based slightly on affiliations.

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote:

The article was claiming that the physicality of brain solely dictated behaviour patterns whereas I was saying that because of evolution and the development of compex abstract structures inside the brain are created and influence the concrete side, i.e the shape of the brain is no longer the catch all for control of the body and it's actions, humnas have a conscience.

A human brain can be described as two things, hardware and software. The hardware is genetic, and most of the software arises as a result of the hardware. The software that is learned can only be learned if the brain has the capacity for it.

In that regard, the physicality of the brain dictates everything about human behaviour, within the context of society.

With that in mind, what are you getting at? Where or what are these "abstract structures inside the brain"?

stevejazzx

Zillah wrote:

A human brain can be described as two things, hardware and software. The hardware is genetic, and most of the software arises as a result of the hardware. The software that is learned can only be learned if the brain has the capacity for it.

In that regard, the physicality of the brain dictates everything about human behaviour, within the context of society.

With that in mind, what are you getting at? Where or what are these "abstract structures inside the brain"?

The abstract structure is the mind, will & conscience, they are not physical, on a contentious level they do not exist, but everyone has them. They influence the hardware whether the hardware likes it or not, even though the hardware is their creator and ultimately their controller and master.

Dades

stevejazzx wrote:

Hope next time i post a sarcastic remark about someones post all the mod miss it, however something tells me that it is a rather selctive process based slightly on affiliations.

Or perhaps Asiaprod is one of the only posters I know who would actually post his appreciation of something he just read. Not affiliation, just familiarity (even though it may have been misguided in this case).

Furthermore, sarcasm is not 'banned'. So if you, Asiaprod, or whoever want to use it go ahead. It's hard wired into our Irish brains, after all...

Zillah

stevejazzx wrote:

The abstract structure is the mind, will & conscience, they are not physical, on a contentious level they do not exist, but everyone has them. They influence the hardware whether the hardware likes it or not, even though the hardware is their creator and ultimately their controller and master.

But its just electricity moving through biological circuits. It very much does exist, as a system. The mind is to the brain as windowsXP is to my PC.

If we're getting into "soul" territory here, there is nothing scientific to suggest that there is anything to the brain beyond a highly complex biological computer.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

I'll try, it's tricky.

The article doesn't discount evolution but rahter leaves out it's importance in the equation. Prehistoric man with mild brain abnormalities etc. acted purely from impulse, increased (possibly) by a brain defect, this was a simple process with no internal struggle. Evolution has tamed the impulses in the human brain.
So generationally the human brain is more stable, considering better health increased lifespans etc. And as we progress scientifically we begin to understand more about abstract things like mind and conscience.
So someone with a brain defect can manipulate the pysical defect with abstract thought or excercise. There is a struggle of mind and matter if you will.
The article was claiming that the physicality of brain solely dictated behaviour patterns whereas I was saying that because of evolution and the development of compex abstract structures inside the brain are created and influence the concrete side, i.e the shape of the brain is no longer the catch all for control of the body and it's actions, humans have a conscience.
Now I understand that conditions such as schizophrenia(sp?) and other serious brain issues can leave individuals with little influence over the physical side but the contention of the article dealt with regualr peolpe, therefore those learnt emotions come into place denying impulse.

You're saying (correct me if I'm misreading you) that the physical and "non-physical" aspects of the brain evolved in parallel, each influencing the other - but that overall, the physical side provides the "impulse", whereas the non-physical provides the "control"?

Isn't that basically the opposite of what the article is saying? You've effectively reintroduced the mind/body duality at the level of superego and id...

How does it work, then, that those with "serious brain issues" have "little influence over the physical side"? Surely, those people have something physically wrong with their brains (given it's chemically treatable, that has to be the case), which would suggest the opposite to what you're saying?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

I must be getting old having not thought Asiaprod was being sarcastic.)

Damn, I must be too. Thank you all for commenting and understanding. I was indeed only thanking the poster for the knowledge I gained on a subject I knew little about.:cool:

stevejazzx

Scofflaw wrote:

You're saying (correct me if I'm misreading you) that the physical and "non-physical" aspects of the brain evolved in parallel, each influencing the other - but that overall, the physical side provides the "impulse", whereas the non-physical provides the "control"?

Well logically the pysical side provided the impulse based genetically from where we descended from (apes). These impulses have been controled through evolving the rational mind.

Scofflaw wrote:

Isn't that basically the opposite of what the article is saying? You've effectively reintroduced the mind/body duality at the level of superego and id...

Although I do agree on some level with the article, I took issue with the fact that it claims pysicality is essentially the necessictaing factor of behaviour.

Scofflaw wrote:

How does it work, then, that those with "serious brain issues" have "little influence over the physical side"? Surely, those people have something physically wrong with their brains (given it's chemically treatable, that has to be the case), which would suggest the opposite to what you're saying?

I meant that people with serious brain damage can't help their brain with their mind as the brain has destabilised the body and the mind cannot function correctly. Someone with dslyexia on the other hand can perform excercies which can help even cure them.



cordially,
Scofflaw[/QUOTE]

stevejazzx

Asiaprod wrote:

Damn, I must be too. Thank you all for commenting and understanding. I was indeed only thanking the poster for the knowledge I gained on a subject I knew little about.:cool:

brilliant piece of follow up sarcasm there any chance of a contribution on thread any time soon or too afraid to get your feet wet?

Asiaprod

stevejazzx wrote:

brilliant piece of follow up sarcasm there any chance of a contribution on thread any time soon or too afraid to get your feet wet?

Lets kill this right now. You have the problem. I thanked you, I thanked the people who responded, and you still see sarcasm. There is none.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

brilliant piece of follow up sarcasm there any chance of a contribution on thread any time soon or too afraid to get your feet wet?

Well, I've never known Asiaprod to be shy of getting his feet wet. On the other had, he has always been nice, not sarcastic....I know people being nice is unusual online, but Asiaprod is proof it's not impossible!

How about interpreting his comments at face value, rather than assuming sarcasm by Asiaprod and conspiracy by the rest of us?

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

Asiaprod wrote:

Lets kill this right now. You have the problem. I thanked you, I thanked the people who responded, and you still see sarcasm. There is none.

If you thanked me why did highlight that particular piece of text which seemed to show a very simplistic (ther brain evolved) idea? Then you commented 'that was really informative' without indicating anything further.
I'm sorry but if it wasn't sarcastic, it's baffling.


then a follow up

ASIAPROD wrote:

Damn, I must be too. Thank you all for commenting and understanding. I was indeed only thanking the poster for the knowledge I gained on a subject I knew little about.

You say Damn! and then use a cool face pic at the end, and now you claim no sarcasm, I don't get it. If you didn't like the post, fine, but why try to undermine the proceedings?

Asiaprod

stevejazzx wrote:

If you thanked me why did highlight that particular piece of text which seemed to show a very simplistic (ther brain evolved) idea?

Maybe it was late, maybe that was the bit the caught my attention. I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but drop the crap about sarcasm. You got it wrong, as has been pointed out by many here, and I do thank you all, I meant what I said. You presented a different perspective, be it correct or not, and I learned from it. For that I thanked you. Does that clear this up?

As for getting my feet wet, huh! I got webbed toes.

Dades

Hurrumph.

Misunderstanding cleared up... no need for anyone to flog it to death (a long, dreamless sleep, I hear...)

Preditions for the future:

1. Everyone will wear boots;
2. Actual sarcasm will be more obvious.

stevejazzx

Asiaprod wrote:

Maybe it was late, maybe that was the bit the caught my attention. I'm sorry if you misunderstood, but drop the crap about sarcasm. You got it wrong, as has been pointed out by many here, and I do thank you all, I meant what I said. You presented a different perspective, be it correct or not, and I learned from it. For that I thanked you. Does that clear this up?

As for getting my feet wet, huh! I got webbed toes.

Oh...*coughs* ahem ...sorry.
Really sorry, I misunderstood completely, feel like an arse....

Asiaprod

stevejazzx wrote:

Oh...*coughs* ahem ...sorry.
Really sorry, I misunderstood completely, feel like an arse....

Glad we can put it to bed:)

<not sarcasm>

aidan24326

I'd recommend a book called "Consciousness - How Matter Becomes Imagination' by Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi from the Neurosciences Institute. It gives a good (if pretty technical in parts) explantion of the general ideas being discussed here.