The Mind and The Paranormal

iamhunted

Im still waiting for science to prove where my mind is, but that doesnt mean I dont have one.

Zillah

iamhunted wrote: »

Im still waiting for science to prove where my mind is, but that doesnt mean I dont have one.

Maybe instead of sitting back waiting for science to be so condescending, you go read a book on neuroscience and see the insurmountable evidence that the mind is a product of the brain.

Oryx

El_mariachi wrote: »

Also science has rather conclusively proven your mind is in your brain.

As someone who is beginning to study psychology (as an amateur, not a student) could you recommend what to read to find out more about that theory above?

I think its clear from what I post here that I am a believer in certain elements of the paranormal. However, I have a rational brain (mostly) and if by some weird chance I was creating these effects myself, I would want to know how Im doing it and whats going on. This is why Ive begun to learn about psychology, to see if what I do has a purely psychological basis, or not. Further study of the mechanisms of the brain would complement that.

El_mariachi

KtK wrote: »

As someone who is beginning to study psychology (as an amateur, not a student) could you recommend what to read to find out more about that theory above?

I think its clear from what I post here that I am a believer in certain elements of the paranormal. However, I have a rational brain (mostly) and if by some weird chance I was creating these effects myself, I would want to know how Im doing it and whats going on. This is why Ive begun to learn about psychology, to see if what I do has a purely psychological basis, or not. Further study of the mechanisms of the brain would complement that.

Not a psychology buff but I'd imagine any book on neuro-science. All also the fact personality, memory and behaviour can be changed by damage to the brain.

But there are several well studied psychlogical effect that explain many apparent paranormal effects.
http://skepdic.com/ideomotor.html
http://skepdic.com/subjectivevalidation.html
http://skepdic.com/selectiv.html
http://skepdic.com/wishfulthinking.html
http://skepdic.com/placebo.html
http://skepdic.com/magicalthinking.html

iamhunted

Zillah wrote: »

Maybe instead of sitting back waiting for science to be so condescending, you go read a book on neuroscience and see the insurmountable evidence that the mind is a product of the brain.

i think you'll find science still debates where the brain resides. Theres a lot of discussion on the subject. Condescending indeed.

iamhunted

El_mariachi wrote: »

Also science has rather conclusively proven your mind is in your brain.

for gods sake people, really. thats just so debatable. - afaik, there is as yet no undisputable proof that the brain and mind are separate. just one of those things science has theories about but no absolute proof. Bit like the big bang theory.

I fear for the world you know when people just believe everything they're told.

El_mariachi

iamhunted wrote: »

for gods sake people, really. thats just so debatable. - afaik, there is as yet no undisputable proof that the brain and mind are separate. just one of those things science has theories about but no absolute proof. Bit like the big bang theory.

I fear for the world you know when people just believe everything they're told.

Pray tell were exactly is the mind then?
Your probably thinking of the soul which is a completely different thing all together.

Your right there is no indisputable proof for anything except in math and logic.
However there is really good evidence for hypotheses.

Theory in the scientific sense of the word does not mean random idea.
The word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Remember evolution and gravity are theories but it is acceptable to say the fact of gravity or the fact of evolution.

Also technically its still called the round earth theory and the helio-centric theory.

Its rather far fetched to always assume every scientist is lying when they show evidence contrary to your person beliefs.

iamhunted

El_mariachi wrote: »

Pray tell were exactly is the mind then?
Your probably thinking of the soul which is a completely different thing all together.

Your right there is no indisputable proof for anything except in math and logic.
However there is really good evidence for hypotheses.

Theory in the scientific sense of the word does not mean random idea.
The word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

Remember evolution and gravity are theories but it is acceptable to say the fact of gravity or the fact of evolution.

Also technically its still called the round earth theory and the helio-centric theory.

Its rather far fetched to always assume every scientist is lying when they show evidence contrary to your person beliefs.

No - im thinking of the mind. if the mind and soul are the same - well thats a completely different theory.

I made the statement that I was waiting for science to tell me where my mind was (so obviously I dont know myself so cant answer your question). I was being told science knows the mind is in the brain - Im just saying science doesnt actually know that.

For example, if I lost my memory, a scientist couldnt say 'dont worry, I know where your subconcious mind is, I'll dig those memories back out for you.' If science knew just where the mind resided, then someone could do that. Ergo you cant really say "Also science has rather conclusively proven your mind is in your brain."

Its rather far fetched to believe someones unproven theory because they class themselves as a 'scientist' - one may as well just believe everything one is told and not think for oneself.

El_mariachi

iamhunted wrote: »

No - im thinking of the mind. if the mind and soul are the same - well thats a completely different theory.

I made the statement that I was waiting for science to tell me where my mind was (so obviously I dont know myself so cant answer your question). I was being told science knows the mind is in the brain - Im just saying science doesnt actually know that.

For example, if I lost my memory, a scientist couldnt say 'dont worry, I know where your subconcious mind is, I'll dig those memories back out for you.' If science knew just where the mind resided, then someone could do that. Ergo you cant really say "Also science has rather conclusively proven your mind is in your brain."

Its rather far fetched to believe someones unproven theory because they class themselves as a 'scientist' - one may as well just believe everything one is told and not think for oneself.

well concider the fact that injury to the brain and defects in the make up of the brain effects what you would class as the mind, memories, personality, bevehaviour language motor function.
Many of the areas in the brain which control these faculities are known but not well mapped.
Emotional responses as well as sensory ones can be detected by an EEG.
Also Just because a doctor is unable to fix certain injuries does not mean the theory is invalid. (medically the brain is very hard to repair). That logic is the same a s saying i cannot fix this clock therefore it does not run on clockwork.
Evidence is out there if you would just look at the research.
I wouldn't call it an unproven theory that the mind is a product of the brain.
But If what you say is true, were is the mind?
So why is it you believe in the unproven theory of ghosts and what not when haunting have been disproven again and again?
But really the mind/body debate is much more suited to another discussion.

???

Wow this thread moved fast!!! If paranormal effects are real they're fairly easy to test for. No physical effect can be untestable or impossible to be explain using science. I'd be very interested in getting involved in the testing.

The mind/brain things... The two theories (used loosly) are that the mind is a physical and chemical product of the brain or that the mind is seperate to the brain (dualism). Dualism is totally discredited and very few people believe it outside of religous neurologists who need a seperate "soul" to fit in with their faith. As El_mariachi said the theory is easily testable. If you suffer brain damage does your 'mind' (personality/reasoning/memory) change and the answer is a definite yes. If the mind is seperate to the brain then their would be no change. Claims that the mind resides in the brain and gets damaged as well are unscientific and untestable. They are only proposed by the aforementioned religous people who require the mind be part of the soul and not the body.

Oryx

??? wrote: »

Wow this thread moved fast!!! If paranormal effects are real they're fairly easy to test for. No physical effect can be untestable or impossible to be explain using science. I'd be very interested in getting involved in the testing.

The mind/brain things... The two theories (used loosly) are that the mind is a physical and chemical product of the brain or that the mind is seperate to the brain (dualism). Dualism is totally discredited and very few people believe it outside of religous neurologists who need a seperate "soul" to fit in with their faith. As El_mariachi said the theory is easily testable. If you suffer brain damage does your 'mind' (personality/reasoning/memory) change and the answer is a definite yes. If the mind is seperate to the brain then their would be no change. Claims that the mind resides in the brain and gets damaged as well are unscientific and untestable. They are only proposed by the aforementioned religous people who require the mind be part of the soul and not the body.

This probably needs splitting to another discussion but I have a completely unproven, unscientific idea with regard to the brain, mind issue. Consider the brain to be the physical machine that carries out the actions of the mind (rather than vice versa, as science sees it). We utilise and are, to an extent, energy. I take a wild leap and consider the mind to be an energy that inhabits the same space, but is not the brain itself. Allow then another huge reach, that the energy of the mind controls the brain in some way yet to be understood. Then, if the brain is damaged, or the unknown connection between the mind and brain is disconnected, then the mind is still intact, but the instruction of the will is not passed to the physicality of the brain. Far fetched, ill give you, as I said, Im a spiritualist, not a scientist. But I find it an interesting theory. If it were true it would explain a lot about soul, and the mind surviving death.

iamhunted

If you suffer brain damage does your 'mind' (personality/reasoning/memory) change and the answer is a definite yes. If the mind is seperate to the brain then their would be no change.

this really is getting off topic - but thats a tad simplistic. Like, are my arm and spine the same thing? Nope, obviously not - but if you break my spine then theres a good chance my arm wont work .... science doesnt understand enough abuot the mind or the brain yet to work out definitely the relationship between both. there are theories which say that both could be reliant on the other - but as I say, as yet (unless someone can point me in the right direction and I dont mean a book talking about what some scientists believe - i'd prefer some form of scientific fact/theory) there is no definitive proof either way. Bit like the paranormal.

Anyway - have you had any offer yet then danny?

???

KtK wrote: »

This probably needs splitting to another discussion but I have a completely unproven, unscientific idea with regard to the brain, mind issue. Consider the brain to be the physical machine that carries out the actions of the mind (rather than vice versa, as science sees it). We utilise and are, to an extent, energy. I take a wild leap and consider the mind to be an energy that inhabits the same space, but is not the brain itself. Allow then another huge reach, that the energy of the mind controls the brain in some way yet to be understood. Then, if the brain is damaged, or the unknown connection between the mind and brain is disconnected, then the mind is still intact, but the instruction of the will is not passed to the physicality of the brain. Far fetched, ill give you, as I said, Im a spiritualist, not a scientist. But I find it an interesting theory. If it were true it would explain a lot about soul, and the mind surviving death.

Tad confused. Energy is the ability for something to do work. It is a measurable scalar quantity. It's unit being the Joule. It's not some mystical undifineable thing.

Also I know I can't attack your beliefs but man are they huge leaps. It is an entirely untestable idea with zero prior plausability. There's also the huge false premise about a) the existance of a soul (unscientific and untestable) and b) the mind surviving death (see previous brackets).

???

Neurologist refuting dualism:
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=153

Zillah

iamhunted wrote: »

For example, if I lost my memory, a scientist couldnt say 'dont worry, I know where your subconcious mind is, I'll dig those memories back out for you.' If science knew just where the mind resided, then someone could do that.

No not at all. There's a huge difference between being able to say where something is and being able to exert effective control over something. We know, for example, exactly where many specific genes are in the chromosome, but that by no means implies that we yet have the capacity to directly control those genes or their effects. A neuroscientist could tell you in quite a lot of detail exactly what parts of the brain control experiences such as love or anger, but that doesn't neccessarily mean we can control who loves who.

The mistake you're making is assuming that understanding results in control. Understanding is a requirement for control, but is not the same thing.

El_mariachi

iamhunted wrote: »

this really is getting off topic - but thats a tad simplistic. Like, are my arm and spine the same thing? Nope, obviously not - but if you break my spine then theres a good chance my arm wont work .... science doesnt understand enough abuot the mind or the brain yet to work out definitely the relationship between both. there are theories which say that both could be reliant on the other - but as I say, as yet (unless someone can point me in the right direction and I dont mean a book talking about what some scientists believe - i'd prefer some form of scientific fact/theory) there is no definitive proof either way. Bit like the paranormal.

Anyway - have you had any offer yet then danny?

Thats the thing this idea of the mind being in the brain is not just a few scientist stating the fact, its backed up by experiment and evidence. There is very convincing proof that the mind is contained in the brain.

Why is it that you are willing to believe anecdotal and inconsistent evidence of haunting yet not in good scientific, verifiable and confirmable evidence in neuroscience?

There is not any convining proof for the existance of any paranormal phenomenon.
Several types of phenomenon have been disproved very convincingly
If paranormal phenomenon did exist there would be conclusive proof especially for phenomenon that people claim to be able to produce.
This is why i would like to see someone take the test. This is how you get evidence, by experiment.

stevenmu

I've moved these posts over from the thread about Randi's challenge, and taken the liberty of editing some posts to remove bits specific to that thread. Please let me know if I've missed anything.

Thanks,
Steve.

6th

Rupert Sheldrake is well worth looking at I have a couple of his books but you really need to set time aside to read them. His site has experiements you can do etc as well as podcasts and videos of experiments.

The books I have are:

The Evolutionary Mind
Conversations on Science, Imagination & Spirit
by Rupert Sheldrake, Terence McKenna & Ralph Abraham


A jam-session of the mind, an intellectual movable feast…… Stimulating and often startling discussions between three friends, all highly original thinkers: Rupert Sheldrake, controversial biologist, Terence McKenna, psychedelic visionary, and Ralph Abraham, chaos mathematician. Breaking out of paradigms that retard our evolution and exploring new possibilities, they venture where few have gone before taking their readers on an exciting journey of discovery.


The Sense of Being Stared At
by Rupert Sheldrake

In his latest book, biologist Rupert Sheldrake explores the intricacies of the mind and discovers that our perceptive abilities are stronger than many of us could have imagined. Most of us know it well - the almost physical sensation that we are the object of someone’s attention. Is the feeling all in our head? And what about related phenomena, such as telepathy and premonitions? Are they merely subjective beliefs? Basing his conclusions on years of intense research, Sheldrake argues persuasively in this compelling, innovative book that such phenomena are real.


He has a few more that I'll get to eventually.

MooseJam

people who don't believe the mind is the brain, where do they think it is ? in our big toe maybe ?

stevenmu

I think that when people are discussing the location of the mind they are discussin whether our conciousness is completetly composed of the biological functions of the brain, or whether there is something more to it than that.

It's just quicker and easier to type "location of the mind"

6th

Another good site: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

El_mariachi

stevenmu wrote: »

I think that when people are discussing the location of the mind they are discussin whether our conciousness is completetly composed of the biological functions of the brain, or whether there is something more to it than that.

It's just quicker and easier to type "location of the mind"

But that is the "is there a soul debate" which is completely different and subject for metapsyhical debate rather than scientific.

Terrence Mc Kenna was a bit of a nut job and not who most people would go to on matters of neuroscience.

Rupert Sheldrake hypotosis was tested and discredited.
http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-09/staring.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-09/09806guess.html

And as for "quantum consciousness" it all ways bugs me when people use quantum mechanics to explain supernatural stuff. Invariably they are talking out their arse but most people haven't the knowledge to properly debate matters of quantum mechanics.

mossieh

iamhunted wrote: »

i think you'll find science still debates where the brain resides. Theres a lot of discussion on the subject. Condescending indeed.

I think most people have a fair idea of where the brain resides.










:pac:

Riamfada

Im just going to jump in on this one for the hahas. If by mind you mean your "being" (personality, individuality ect). Its pretty much entirely located withing the grey mass in your noggin. Take for example the case in the 1900's. The name escapes me as I havnt taken a class in psychology in two years (minor as part of my degree). An iron rod shot up and pentrated his frontal lobe. He survived but his entire personality changed, previously mild mannered he bacame iratalbe and violent. Ergo his altered brian altered his mind.

The origin of paranormal phenomenon originating in the brain is much more comprehensive than paranormal phenomenon originating in "other worlds"

???

Sabotage wrote: »

Another good site: http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

Ahhh!!!! I was wondering when someone would call quantum. It's pretty much the latest buzzword in pseudo-science because 99% of people don't have any clue what it's about and it sounds cool. In brief, quantum effects:
a) Have no bearing what-so-ever on the macroscopic world (the one we live in!). They are very odd and confusing and apply at subatomic levels. Even single atoms are too large for quantum physics.
b) Are detectable. Quantum effects can be detected. If the brain was a 'quantum computer' it would be possible to be demonstrated by experimentation.

Also the brain is a chemical system. That is why alcohol and cat urine have affects on you. They don't opperate on a quantum level. If the brain was a quantum system chemical drugs would have no effects, you'd have to shoot high speed electrons at your head!!!

Calling quantum physics is pretty much calling magic. The twisted understanding these people have of theoretical physics is utterly astounding. You'll note that no theoretical physicist hase ever suggested quantum as an explanation for psychic or the like, only biologists do!!!(joke)

SkepticOne

The problem is that a lot of people have dug themselves the hole of thinking of mind as a kind of energy field.

Once they think in these narrow terms they are forced to wonder where this energy resides. They can't shake themselves of this view so they are perplexed.

The word mind has several meanings. I think the one most relevant here is the collection of attributes we associate with a person e.g. personality, intelligence, empathy, self-awareness and so on. If someone has these we are happy to say they have a mind. Here, mind is something that is produced by the brain but is not the brain itself.

It is not a physical object but a pattern of activity we recognise as mind when we see it in others. We can recognise mind even when we have no idea what physical system is producing it such as communicating in text over the internet.

How does the brain produce these patterns? The idea that a brain, a piece of meat, should produce any form of pattern seems amazing yet this has been explained by neuroscience through the action of the neuron. What neuroscience is a long way from explaining is every aspect of human behaviour but the principle of how neurons process information and produce output patterns is no longer a mystery. It has been shown that any form of computation can be produced by simplified models of the neuron.

But in order to appreciate these ideas we must let go of these New Age energy ideas which are blocking understanding.

Sunn

I was researching the holographic paradigm recently.

heres a link that relates to this topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holonomic_brain_theory

iamhunted

There is very convincing proof that the mind is contained in the brain.

seriously - where is this convincing proof? And for those of you who can only answer with things like 'of course the mind is in the brain' -


also - back to the injured spine theory ... just because someone gets a brain injury and their mind is affected, doesnt mean their mind is in their brain.

How does the brain produce these patterns? The idea that a brain, a piece of meat, should produce any form of pattern seems amazing yet this has been explained by neuroscience through the action of the neuron. What neuroscience is a long way from explaining is every aspect of human behaviour but the principle of how neurons process information and produce output patterns is no longer a mystery. It has been shown that any form of computation can be produced by simplified models of the neuron.

again, i think whats happening is we have too little information and are making too massive a statement on it. this can go on for ever but i dont think anyone on here will be able to show that science is all as one on the topic of the mind.

unless of course that "convincing proof" shows up.

Riamfada

iamhunted wrote: »

also - back to the injured spine theory ... just because someone gets a brain injury and their mind is affected, doesnt mean their mind is in their brain.

I guess thats like saying if someone injurs their leg and cant walk dosnt mean you walk with your legs.

If what you define as the mind is damaged when the brain is damaged .... then its pretty much the link between them both . I think thats pretty conclusive unless of course my theory of the paranormal rested on the fact that the mind isnt part of the brain.

???

iamhunted wrote: »

also - back to the injured spine theory ... just because someone gets a brain injury and their mind is affected, doesnt mean their mind is in their brain.

Your anology is totally false. The arm is a physical object. The reason damaging the spine can affect the arm is neural pathways may be damaged. Likewise brain damage can affect the arm. However, the arm itself can be damaged. You can break it or whatever while doing absolutely nothing to the spine, brain or the rest of the nervous system (except for intense pain, but no physical damage to them). The mind cannot be affected without affecting the brain. The mind as a product of the brain theory would be blown right out of the water if someone could prove you could affect the mind without affecting the brain. No one has done this, which is pretty compelling evidence for the mind caused by brain.

seriously - where is this convincing proof? And for those of you who can only answer with things like 'of course the mind is in the brain'

See above! That is just one line of evidence. Even things that don't physically damage the brain, like alcohol, but instead react chemically with parts of the brain can affect memory, recall, temperment and all the rest of the mind stuff. That is 'convincing proof' that the chemicals in the brain play a major part of the mind.

Brain imaging shows that when subjects are asked to remember something, one part of their brain lights up. When they are asked to lie another part lights up, the same with when they are made experience an emotion or exposed to pain. This shows that things the mind supposedly control have a physical and distinct part of the brain dedicated to them.

Now I'm not a neurologist so I am unfamiliar with the more complex lines of evidence but we have jointly presented three of the simpler ones. There is not one scrap of real evidence supporting the dual hypothesis let alone multiple lines.

again, i think whats happening is we have too little information and are making too massive a statement on it. this can go on for ever but i dont think anyone on here will be able to show that science is all as one on the topic of the mind.

There is plenty of information and the statement is a tiny one. The choice is obvious between mind product of the brian and dualism. One has all the evidence the other has... nothing!
All as one? Every single respected neurologist and neuroscientist has accepted the mind as a product of the brain (anyone know a shorter version?!) theory for the last 20 years! The only neurologists who propose the dualism hypothesis are those who try to force the science onto their beliefs, like Deepak Chopra.

Criticisms of dualism have been very successful in modern science, and few if any neuroscientists would consider taking such a position. Scientists commonly assume that only the physical, and thus measurable, is real. Mental states and processes are viewed as biological states and processes.

unless of course that "convincing proof" shows up.

Presented above!




EDIT: Oh just noticed Sheldrake had been brought up, he has experiments (thorughly debunked but he stands by them) showing that dogs are psychic. Yes little Fido can psychically tell when their owner will arrive back. Just a reccomendation that everyone bears that in mind if they're tempted to read his stuff and think about whether accepting it at face value is adviseable!

Please ignore the condecsending tone! Irony is a pain to type!!!

MooseJam

where do the people who think there is doubt that the mind is the brain think it is, and if it's not the brain then what is the brain for, balast lol , seriously I thought I'd heard it all after reading the creationist thread but it appears there are people with ideas to top that

Havermeyer

Zillah wrote: »

Maybe instead of sitting back waiting for science to be so condescending, you go read a book on neuroscience and see the insurmountable evidence that the mind is a product of the brain.

Excuse me for being ignorant, but surely everybody realises that?! I fear for anybody that doesn't.

Just re-reading over this thread. I am amazed. Iamhunted, you need to do some reading.

stevenmu

El_mariachi wrote: »

But that is the "is there a soul debate" which is completely different and subject for metapsyhical debate rather than scientific.

Tbh I think that is crucial to the discussion here, everyone knows that the brain plays at least a very large role in the "mind". What I believe iamhunted was suggesting with his post is that science has not yet proven that the brain and it's processes is completely responsible for the totality of our conciousness and sentience.

Grimes wrote: »

Im just going to jump in on this one for the hahas. If by mind you mean your "being" (personality, individuality ect). Its pretty much entirely located withing the grey mass in your noggin. Take for example the case in the 1900's. The name escapes me as I havnt taken a class in psychology in two years (minor as part of my degree). An iron rod shot up and pentrated his frontal lobe. He survived but his entire personality changed, previously mild mannered he bacame iratalbe and violent. Ergo his altered brian altered his mind.

The origin of paranormal phenomenon originating in the brain is much more comprehensive than paranormal phenomenon originating in "other worlds"

Phineas Gage?

SkepticOne wrote: »

The word mind has several meanings. I think the one most relevant here is the collection of attributes we associate with a person e.g. personality, intelligence, empathy, self-awareness and so on. If someone has these we are happy to say they have a mind. Here, mind is something that is produced by the brain but is not the brain itself.

I think that's an important point. The mind is not any one single thing, but rather as you say a collection of attributes, or possibly a collection of processes. Some of these processes are demonstrably produced through the simple biological processes of the brain. Others are not. That does not mean they are of supernatural origin, but equally it does not mean that they are not.

How does the brain produce these patterns? The idea that a brain, a piece of meat, should produce any form of pattern seems amazing yet this has been explained by neuroscience through the action of the neuron. What neuroscience is a long way from explaining is every aspect of human behaviour but the principle of how neurons process information and produce output patterns is no longer a mystery. It has been shown that any form of computation can be produced by simplified models of the neuron.

I have studied AI, and I'm quite familiar with the concepts and programming behind neural networks. It actually gives a fascinating insight into how some of the minds processes work, and it can even emulate emergence, whereby the overall capability of the network can be greater than the sum of its parts. i.e. a greater degree of intelligence can result from the network as a whole than would be expected from the individual components.

However the principles by which it has been shown that any form of computation can be produced by simplified models of the neuron, equally state that any other form of computation can replicate the models of the neuron. And as advanced and complex as artificial neural networks can be, they still can only represent very limited aspects of the mind. There are still aspects which can not be represented, sentience/self-awareness being the most obvious. And this is not down to practicalities or computational limits (which exist but can be worked around).

It's simply because no one knows how to even begin mapping such aspects onto any existing (or theoretical) computational models. There are simply aspects of the mind which we do not have enough understanding of to begin to explain, let alone to duplicate.

The fact that theoretically we should be able to duplicate completely the functions of neurons, and yet we have no way of even beginning to model certain aspects of the "mind" indicates to me that potentially the complete "mind" may be a result of more than just our brain. Our brain certainly plays a large role, but perhaps it's not the only thing.

Of course this may be just down to our lack of understanding of these aspects of the "mind", perhaps with a better understanding of them we could quite easily map them to a neural network. But even that lack of understanding demonstrates that science does not, and currently can not, prove that the totality of our mind is purely a result of biological processes within the brain.

???

stevenmu wrote: »

Tbh I think that is crucial to the discussion here, everyone knows that the brain plays at least a very large role in the "mind". What I believe iamhunted was suggesting with his post is that science has not yet proven that the brain and it's processes is completely responsible for the totality of our conciousness and sentience.

Science has indeed proven that the brain plays a 'very large role' in the mind. But no other area has been proven to play a part. While abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence it makes a pretty good case as no other part of the human body is capable of computation as the brain is. Getting beyond this your getting into unscientific woo! Science is only interested in the real and measureable. 'The Mind' as a seperate thing is undetectable and as long as it remains so, the logical and physical assumption is that the mind is a product of the brain.

I think that's an important point. The mind is not any one single thing, but rather as you say a collection of attributes, or possibly a collection of processes. Some of these processes are demonstrably produced through the simple biological processes of the brain. Others are not. That does not mean they are of supernatural origin, but equally it does not mean that they are not.

Would you mind giving an example? I can't counter a vague generalisation like that. Also, every single natural explanation should be exhausted before supernatural ones are even mentioned let alone considered, the odds are infinatly more likely that they are natural than supernatural. There is not one thing in science that has a supernatural cause. It is therefore safe to assume it will be natural.

The fact that theoretically we should be able to duplicate completely the functions of neurons, and yet we have no way of even beginning to model certain aspects of the "mind" indicates to me that potentially the complete "mind" may be a result of more than just our brain. Our brain certainly plays a large role, but perhaps it's not the only thing.

That is the biggest non-sequiter I have ever seen!!! The brain is unimaginably complex and that is why we struggle to succesfully map it. Why would our diffuculties unraveling the single most complicated structure in nature possibly lead on to the assumption that there must be something else as well?

Of course this may be just down to our lack of understanding of these aspects of the "mind", perhaps with a better understanding of them we could quite easily map them to a neural network. But even that lack of understanding demonstrates that science does not, and currently can not, prove that the totality of our mind is purely a result of biological processes within the brain.

Science can never prove anything as a totality. Gravity is not a totality, look at the voyager probes, they are minisculy out of position and no one has yet worked out why! There are hypothesis about why that involve gravity. Science is never complete by its very nature. All we can go on is the evidence and there is not one scrap of evidence that suggests a seperate mind.

stevenmu

As for injurys to the brain indicating that it is responsible for the mind, in light of the lack of understanding of aspects of the mind, and how the processes of the brain could be responsible for them, I believe that is drawing a conclusion from inconclusive evidence.

If, hypothetically, some or all aspects of the mind originate from something other than the brain, say some sort of "energy field", then it is highly likely that the brain acts as an interface between this and the physical body. Hence damage to the brain, and thus the interface between the "mind" and the body, would replicate the same effects as if the brain itself was wholly responsible for the "mind".

To use analogies, if the tuner in a TV was damaged, this could lead to an incorrect picture being shown on the screen or even no picture being shown on screen. This could appear as if the screen itself was actually damaged however it would not be.

???

stevenmu wrote: »

As for injurys to the brain indicating that it is responsible for the mind, in light of the lack of understanding of aspects of the mind, and how the processes of the brain could be responsible for them, I believe that is drawing a conclusion from inconclusive evidence.

Multiple lines of evidence. Check my big post at the end of page two for more!

If, hypothetically, some or all aspects of the mind originate from something other than the brain, say some sort of "energy field", then it is highly likely that the brain acts as an interface between this and the physical body. Hence damage to the brain, and thus the interface between the "mind" and the body, would replicate the same effects as if the brain itself was wholly responsible for the "mind".

Load of unscientific waffle. There is not one scrap of evidence supporting that or anyother dualist theory.

To use analogies, if the tuner in a TV was damaged, this could lead to an incorrect picture being shown on the screen or even no picture being shown on screen. This could appear as if the screen itself was actually damaged however it would not be.

Another false analogy. The tuner is a physical thing. You can damage it, which gives the appearance of a damged screen but you can also damage the screen without damaging the tuner. If someone can prove you can affect the mind without affecting the brain the theory is blown out of the water. Anyone who has tri3ed to do that has failed.

stevenmu

??? wrote: »

Getting beyond this your getting into unscientific woo!

This is the paranormal forum after all :pac:

And the problem with the paranormal is that we do not understand it well enough to conduct proper scientific examination. A lot of good science first started of as unscientific woo, and over the years as people began to understand it better and better they formed hypothesis and postualated theories, which would be rejected and eventually as the processes became better understood, more valid working theories would be formulated. The "unscientific woo" phase is the beginning of the scientific process, if we dismiss everything which is not immediately supported by evidence then we wouldn't get very far at all.

Science is only interested in the real and measureable. 'The Mind' as a seperate thing is undetectable and as long as it remains so, the logical and physical assumption is that the mind is a product of the brain.

An interesting contradiction there. The topic started on the premise that science has not proven the 'location' of the mind. By your own arguments the "mind" is undetectable, and since science is is only interested in the real and measurable then it can only be an assumption that the "mind" is a product of the brain. An assumption, I'm sure you'll agree, is not scientific proof, and therefore must the original premise not be correct?

Would you mind giving an example? I can't counter a vague generalisation like that. Also, every single natural explanation should be exhausted before supernatural ones are even mentioned let alone considered, the odds are infinatly more likely that they are natural than supernatural. There is not one thing in science that has a supernatural cause. It is therefore safe to assume it will be natural.

The obvious one is sentience, our self-awareness, to the extent that we can sit here and argue about the location of the mind. The scientific view of our brain is that it operates as a neural network, with neurons recieving inputs signals, and depending on those signals giving out certain output signals. Something like feeling pain or hunger can easily be linked to a sensory input triggering various reactions throughout the neurons of our brain, certain chemicals being produced/released etc.

But there is no known neural network process which can explain sentience. This is not a factor of complexity, we could if desired produce an artificial neural network as complex as the brain (or even vastly more so), we simply can not understand how sentience can be mapped to a neurological process. Or even begin to. (which has led to speculation that sentience is just an illusion, but there is no real evidence I know of to support this)

It does not necessarily follow that the cause for sentience must then be supernatural (preturnatural is actually a better word), it just leaves it open as a possibility.

And in good science (and I'd imagine by extension good scepticism), in the absence of any evidence either way, each possibility must be considered equally possible and likely. To say that one possibility is too fantastic or ridiculous to be true is applying a subjective bias to what should be a purely objecive matter.

(as a practicality, science is often limited by the resources available, therefore scientists are often limited to researching what they believe to be the most likely. Luckily on the forum here we have no limit on posts and I believe we should use as manay as possible discussing the most fantastic incredible ideas possible )

Science can never prove anything as a totality. Gravity is not a totality, look at the voyager probes, they are minisculy out of position and no one has yet worked out why! There are hypothesis about why that involve gravity. Science is never complete by its very nature. All we can go on is the evidence and there is not one scrap of evidence that suggests a seperate mind.

I agree completely. I think you might have misunderstood the context I was using the word "totality" in, I was referring to the "totality" of the mind as in all aspects of the mind in one. The sum product of the mind if you will. (or perhaps I just saw you use the word totality aswell and I'm misunderstanding your post)


By the way, with the voyager probes, that's just Uri Gellar having a laugh :pac:

???

stevenmu wrote: »

This is the paranormal forum after all :pac:

And the problem with the paranormal is that we do not understand it well enough to conduct proper scientific examination. A lot of good science first started of as unscientific woo, and over the years as people began to understand it better and better they formed hypothesis and postualated theories, which would be rejected and eventually as the processes became better understood, more valid working theories would be formulated. The "unscientific woo" phase is the beginning of the scientific process, if we dismiss everything which is not immediately supported by evidence then we wouldn't get very far at all.

Have to say your incorreect there. 99.99% of science starts with an observation whether it's apple's falling from trees or alpha particles passing through gold foil. It almost never starts with a 'Eureka' moment. Also, no science ever starts as unscientific. Even the most radical scientific theories, Einstein's photoelectric law?, are presented as a testable hypothesis. To say the mind is seperate to the brain is untestable. I cannot think of any scientific hypothesis (hell a hypothesis by its nature must be based on observation) that is now accepted science that started with no evidence.

An interesting contradiction there. The topic started on the premise that science has not proven the 'location' of the mind. By your own arguments the "mind" is undetectable, and since science is is only interested in the real and measurable then it can only be an assumption that the "mind" is a product of the brain. An assumption, I'm sure you'll agree, is not scientific proof, and therefore must the original premise not be correct?

It is a testable hypothesis that has withstood all tests. It is the only current evidence supported theory. If you have one supported theory and one unsubstantiated, untestable assertion you really have to apply Ochams Razer and go with the supported theory. As the theory fully explains all available evidence there is absolutly no reason to assume it incorrect and by extension assume the initial premise correct.

The obvious one is sentience, our self-awareness, to the extent that we can sit here and argue about the location of the mind. The scientific view of our brain is that it operates as a neural network, with neurons recieving inputs signals, and depending on those signals giving out certain output signals. Something like feeling pain or hunger can easily be linked to a sensory input triggering various reactions throughout the neurons of our brain, certain chemicals being produced/released etc.

But there is no known neural network process which can explain sentience. This is not a factor of complexity, we could if desired produce an artificial neural network as complex as the brain (or even vastly more so), we simply can not understand how sentience can be mapped to a neurological process. Or even begin to. (which has led to speculation that sentience is just an illusion, but there is no real evidence I know of to support this)

I really hate doing this but I know next to nothing about artificial neuronetworks so I really can't take you on on this area. Could you reccommend any books on it? I have an insatiable curiosity with all things sciency!!!

It does not necessarily follow that the cause for sentience must then be supernatural (preturnatural is actually a better word), it just leaves it open as a possibility.

And in good science (and I'd imagine by extension good scepticism), in the absence of any evidence either way, each possibility must be considered equally possible and likely. To say that one possibility is too fantastic or ridiculous to be true is applying a subjective bias to what should be a purely objecive matter.

No. Just no!!! This is the creationist fallacy that two things unequel in probability should be given equel time. Science is not fair. Prior probability demonstrtes the chance of it being preturnatural are next to zero. Also, science does not do supernatural, every single possible physical and natural explanation should be exhausted first!

(as a practicality, science is often limited by the resources available, therefore scientists are often limited to researching what they believe to be the most likely. Luckily on the forum here we have no limit on posts and I believe we should use as manay as possible discussing the most fantastic incredible ideas possible )

All to often money is wated on bad things! Investigations into homeopathy (it's water people!), all other SCAMs and whether dogs are psychic (oh Sheldrake...) are a total waste.

By the way, with the voyager probes, that's just Uri Gellar having a laugh :pac:

Hqahaha. Everytime someone believes Geller, I die a little inside!!!

SkepticOne

stevenmu wrote: »

I have studied AI, and I'm quite familiar with the concepts and programming behind neural networks. It actually gives a fascinating insight into how some of the minds processes work, and it can even emulate emergence, whereby the overall capability of the network can be greater than the sum of its parts. i.e. a greater degree of intelligence can result from the network as a whole than would be expected from the individual components.

However the principles by which it has been shown that any form of computation can be produced by simplified models of the neuron, equally state that any other form of computation can replicate the models of the neuron. And as advanced and complex as artificial neural networks can be, they still can only represent very limited aspects of the mind. There are still aspects which can not be represented, sentience/self-awareness being the most obvious. And this is not down to practicalities or computational limits (which exist but can be worked around).

It's simply because no one knows how to even begin mapping such aspects onto any existing (or theoretical) computational models. There are simply aspects of the mind which we do not have enough understanding of to begin to explain, let alone to duplicate.

The fact that theoretically we should be able to duplicate completely the functions of neurons, and yet we have no way of even beginning to model certain aspects of the "mind" indicates to me that potentially the complete "mind" may be a result of more than just our brain. Our brain certainly plays a large role, but perhaps it's not the only thing.

Of course this may be just down to our lack of understanding of these aspects of the "mind", perhaps with a better understanding of them we could quite easily map them to a neural network. But even that lack of understanding demonstrates that science does not, and currently can not, prove that the totality of our mind is purely a result of biological processes within the brain.

There's a difference between something being incredibly complex and being mysterious, paranormal or fundamentally unexplainable.

If we go back to the meaning I applied to mind, namely the collection of attributes, behaviours, processes etc associated with a person, then provided we stick to observable processes, there does not appear to be any fundamental mystery how a system with 10 billion neurons and 1,000 times that of connections between them evolved over tens of millions of years, can exhibit the sort of observable behaviour associated with humans.

With regard to sentience/consciousness, no science will not be able to explain this. Physical science can only attempt to model objective observable phenomena. Consciousness is fundamentally subjective. There is no observable distinction between a conscious thing and a thing lacking consciousness.

But there are many things beyond the realm of science. It does not mean they are paranormal. Consciousness is normal not paranormal. The paranormal requires something to be observable (say telepathy) but beyond our scientific understanding.

Zillah

stevenmu wrote: »

If, hypothetically, some or all aspects of the mind originate from something other than the brain, say some sort of "energy field"

Right. Thats it, I'm done with this forum. I actually gagged a little when I read that.

I am amazed that someone who has clearly read so much about science can demonstrate no undertsanding of its principles. Your pseudo-scientific flights of fancy add nothing to our understanding of anything and I'm tired of biting my tonuge.

See ya kids.

Riamfada

Bye Zillah




I hope you dont Mind my photo and for the record this thread hurts my brain. Everyone stop being so stupid

SkepticOne

??? wrote: »

Another false analogy. The tuner is a physical thing. You can damage it, which gives the appearance of a damged screen but you can also damage the screen without damaging the tuner. If someone can prove you can affect the mind without affecting the brain the theory is blown out of the water. Anyone who has tri3ed to do that has failed.

Good point. I would like to see this addressed by someone who believes in a paranormal nature of the brain.

???

Why thank you! It is however, the fundamental test for duality. If you can prove you can affect the mind without affecting the brain you disprove the theory. It's also a perfectly testable and scientific criticism of the theory. It falls flat seeing as no one has been able to do it.

Ah now Zillah, you know the gagging/dying a little inside/crying hysterically is half the fun of this board!

knird evol

What definition of mind are people working with here.
Is there an agreed one. Can't have discussion and debate until definition of terms is decided. Question Markey probably has a candidate one from a book he read.

Havermeyer

??? wrote: »

Ah now Zillah, you know the gagging/dying a little inside/crying hysterically is half the fun of this board!

I'm not Zillah, though I do agree with you. But sometimes it just gets a little too ridiculous in here. The 'energy field' comment left me dumbfounded. This thread has left me feeling quite angry/baffled at some people's way of thinking, and it's not good for my blood pressure. Some people believe what they want to believe, and there's nothing you or I or anyone will change their mind. Faith is a dangerous, dangerous mistress.

By the way, nice picture Grimes.

El_mariachi

nummnutts wrote: »

sometimes it just gets a little too ridiculous in here. The 'energy field' comment left me dumbfounded. Some people believe what they want to believe.

Sometime I actually wonder how these people get through a day.....

Riamfada

As much as it pains me I’m forced to agree with the Septics on this one. Ignoring true science and biology in order to support outlandish theories about the paranormal makes hutingators look like uneducated fantasists when most have actually read widely on the subject of their choice and come from well qualified degrees and other educational backgrounds. I find it interesting that people who have so adamantly stressed the importance of science and its applications to huntigation in the past are quick to dismiss scientific norms when it challenges the existence of the paranormal, in this case the prevailing conscience after death.

G

stevenmu

<Moderator Commment>
Ok, I've turned a blind eye to some of the snide remarks and ridiculing comments being made over the last couple of days, in this thread and others, partly because I was posting in the threads myself, and partly because I was hoping that friendly sceptical discussions could be had. Apparantly I was wrong and I will no longer turn a blind eye to such posts. Anyone who cannot make there posts without snide remarks and ridiculing comments will be instantly banned.

SkepticOne and ???'s posts are good examples of how a sceptical argument can be made.

(which isn't to say that only sceptics have been making snide remarks and ridiculing comments, and this warning applies to everyone)

iamhunted

ive missed loads of bits on this thread so I must go back and read it. still though, I dont think anyone has posted the links to this conclusive proof that was talked about that the mind is in fact part of the brain? Did i miss that?

Grimes - my point being is that unless this has been accepted and proved beyond a doubt (which I dont think it has) then you cant really call it scientific proof really now can you ..... As mentioned before, I dont know, nor do I pretend to know, what or where the mind is. could be part of the brain, may not be .. ive no idea.

Still though, its good to see how many people seem to know everything.

iamhunted

oh yes - heres all the proof.

??? wrote: »

Your anology is totally false. The arm is a physical object. The reason damaging the spine can affect the arm is neural pathways may be damaged. Likewise brain damage can affect the arm. However, the arm itself can be damaged. You can break it or whatever while doing absolutely nothing to the spine, brain or the rest of the nervous system (except for intense pain, but no physical damage to them). The mind cannot be affected without affecting the brain. The mind as a product of the brain theory would be blown right out of the water if someone could prove you could affect the mind without affecting the brain. No one has done this, which is pretty compelling evidence for the mind caused by brain.

I think - as would you if you thought about it, like REALLY thought about it - this hasnt been done as we dont understand enough about the mind in order to actually try to prove it. which is my point ....

See above! That is just one line of evidence. Even things that don't physically damage the brain, like alcohol, but instead react chemically with parts of the brain can affect memory, recall, temperment and all the rest of the mind stuff. That is 'convincing proof' that the chemicals in the brain play a major part of the mind.

see above to what exactly? what have you said that actually explains anything?

Brain imaging shows that when subjects are asked to remember something, one part of their brain lights up. When they are asked to lie another part lights up, the same with when they are made experience an emotion or exposed to pain. This shows that things the mind supposedly control have a physical and distinct part of the brain dedicated to them.

Now I'm not a neurologist so I am unfamiliar with the more complex lines of evidence but we have jointly presented three of the simpler ones. There is not one scrap of real evidence supporting the dual hypothesis let alone multiple lines.

are you talking recollections or sub conscious ? and who said anything supports the dual hypothesis let alone multiple lines ? i certainly never did.

There is plenty of information and the statement is a tiny one. The choice is obvious between mind product of the brian and dualism. One has all the evidence the other has... nothing!
All as one? Every single respected neurologist and neuroscientist has accepted the mind as a product of the brain (anyone know a shorter version?!) theory for the last 20 years! The only neurologists who propose the dualism hypothesis are those who try to force the science onto their beliefs, like Deepak Chopra.

maybe - but again, has this brain in the mind thing been officially accepted by science or is it something that has been discussed and not officially agreed upon?

Presented above!

Again - where? or more accurately, what?

EDIT: Oh just noticed Sheldrake had been brought up, he has experiments (thorughly debunked but he stands by them) showing that dogs are psychic. Yes little Fido can psychically tell when their owner will arrive back. Just a reccomendation that everyone bears that in mind if they're tempted to read his stuff and think about whether accepting it at face value is adviseable!

Please ignore the condecsending tone! Irony is a pain to type!!!

I dont mind irony but you have to actually have a point to be condesending.

I will ask once more. Can someone please point me to suitable information that tells me that science has proof that the mind is in the brain. Not books, not discussions, not strange references to stranges names - but maybe a scientific theory that proves the mind is part of the brain. anything that proves beyond a doubt that the scientific community states that.

Can anyone?

johnsix

iamhunted wrote: »

I will ask once more. Can someone please point me to suitable information that tells me that science has proof that the mind is in the brain. Not books, not discussions, not strange references to stranges names - but maybe a scientific theory that proves the mind is part of the brain. anything that proves beyond a doubt that the scientific community states that.

Can anyone?

It's kind of hard to tell what you're asking for.
I believe ??? and other have shown that various lines of inquiry show that the brain is responsable for the mind (personality cognition etc.). They also have stated that there is no convincing evidence of any other (or parallel) mechanism for mind.

The theory doesn't prove anything. Evidence proves the theory.
So there is no theory to prove the mind is in the brain, rather the theory is the mind is in the brain, evidence proves this theory.

Given that most people who deal practically with the mind (psychologists psychiatrists etc.) all work under the theory the mind is a product of the brain and thus persue research in that direction. People who deal with the brain medically are aware the mind is in the brain. Hence certain brain operations are performed with the patient awake so as to test language motor and personality centres so not to damage them while the surgery is performed. I'd say the theory that the brain is in the mind is fairly welll excepted in science.
The only people who really deal with dualism are philosophers and theologians.

Dualism is a really tricky subject and cannot be summed up in a few sentances let alone a single post. I'd recommend wikipedia if you're not willing to read books.
Here's a good place to start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29