BothAndBlog Forum

In the brain
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/802491

"Memories" are functions, not "phenomena". — 180 Proof
What function do the memories of my brother serve. Or what function does my earliest memory of having a cold and being in a pram sucking a cough sweet on a wet day serve? — Andrew4Handel

↪180 Proof's distinction between a Function and a Phenomenon may be relevant to your question. But not necessarily in the dismissive irrelevance he intended. A brain function*1 is a causal relationship between input & output, this because of that. And a phenomenon*2 is what the physical senses detect. So, objectively, there are no phenomena in your brain. Unless you count the targets of inwardly focused senses.

The brain receives inputs from bodily senses, evaluates that information relative to body welfare (survival), then sends outputs back down to various organs, as required to maintain the life processes of the system. A necessary function of that evaluation is the memory of previous experiences. So, the memory of your brother may be relevant to your social & familial support network (e.g. kin selection as an evolutionary strategy for genetic survival). In that case, a memory is a subjective phenomenon.

180 goes on to assert that "The brain itself does not have 'senses' of its own so "phenomena in the brain" – humuncular theory – does not make sense." The brain may not have a physical "little man organ" (homonculus) whose function is observation of external & internal phenomena. But it does connect to a variety of interoception & exteroception sensory organs to gather information about environmental & body states. Those combined sensory inputs, as a whole system, could be characterized as "senses of its own" : a metaphorical homonculus*4. And the evaluative or executive function of the brain could be viewed as a Symbolic-Self created by the brain's Imagination Function to serve as a mental model of the body system as a whole.

Therefore, the images created by the brain to represent external phenomena, could be construed as "phenomena in the brain". 180's distinction may be merely intended to point-out that internal models are Ideal, not Real; subjective, not objective*3. To you, memories of your brother are essential to your life story. But to him, the phenomena pictures in your brain are meaningless --- unless he can metaphorically resonate with your feelings. Subjective images of phenomena are immaterial, hence literally don't matter to those with a Materialist worldview.


*1. A function relates an input to an output. ... It is like a machine that has an input and an output. And the output is related somehow to the input.
https://www.mathsisfun.com/sets/function.html

*2. A phenomenon, in a scientific context, is something that is observed to occur or to exist.
https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/phenomenon

*3. The Embodied Self and the Paradox of Subjectivity :
Broadly speaking, the paradox of subjectivity concerns the relationship of subjectivity or consciousness to the world. On the one hand, subjectivity constitutes or discloses objects, in the sense they have for us as conscious beings. On the other hand, subjectivity pertains to humans who are, of course, objects in the world. But these two claims do not seem to fit together well, although it is not immediately obvious what exactly the problem is.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-09256-4

*4. HOMONCULUS model of sensory detectors in brain
kalmanovitch_image_1.gif?format=1000w

Talk of ‘what brains do’ was called ‘the mereological fallacy’ in a well-known book on neuroscience and philosophy. The mereological fallacy is to ascribe to parts of the body what only agents or actors are capable of doing. ‘The brain’ becomes a kind of explanatory unit, an idealised black box which ‘does’ this or ‘produces’ that and so on. But ascribing thoughts to ‘the brain’ is like saying your computer writes your entries in this thread. Humans think, humans write. They need normal brain function to do so, but it’s not ‘the brain’ which is doing that. Brains are always situated as part of a whole, which is precisely what ‘mereology’ refers to. — Wayfarer

You and I seem to be more attuned to Part/Whole paradoxes*1 than most forum posters. I suppose that sensitivity derives from a General/Holistic (philosophical) rather than Specific/Reductive (scientific) worldview. Ironically, I am better read in Science than in Philosophy --- but not much depth in either. So my Holism stems mainly from my focus on the multiform roles of Generic Information in the world : including Energy & Mind. It's not so much influenced by familiarity with Eastern philosophies.

In the context of this thread, the pertinent distinction seems to lie between Brain (as Mechanical Black Box) and Mind (as personal Agent : the Self). Mechanical processes, including those of neural nets, are governed by physical laws ; so are orderly, and though complex, somewhat predictable. But Agency is a more centralized & integrated & self-oriented, so less predictable, System than a scatter-brain.

*1. Merelogical Fallacy :
To ascribe attributes to a part of a whole that can properly be ascribed only to the whole-of-which-it-is-a-part is a mereological fallacy.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41682961


I feel like it is too convenient just to try and correlate any concept and or mental state with a brain state and assume the brain state does all the explanatory work we need without an actual causal explanation.
It seems to lead to a kind of apathy where it is almost too much effort to look for another type of explanation. (For me anyway). It means fighting against an entrenched paradigm. — Andrew4Handel

As ↪Wayfarer noted, the "paradigm" you are struggling with may be the Reductive perspective of Classical physical science (since Newton), which focuses on collections of parts, rather than whole systems. Since the isolated parts are not viewed in the context of an integrated interrelated System, the Cause of their functional integrity is a mystery : the Hard Problem.

Fortunately, a new way to do Science*2 has emerged, since Quantum physics was shown to be non-Mechanical and non-Classical. One place where Systems Science is being practiced is the Santa Fe Institute*3 for the study of Complexity. Whole systems may be internally complex, but externally they have a singular aspect. And the black-box human brain may be the most complex and integrated physical system in the universe. So, it's not surprising that the "entrenched paradigm" of Reductionism cannot explain how a tangled mass of neurons can become self-conscious, and can be aware of stored memories.

The Institute may not have discovered the ultimate "causal explanation" yet, but it is working toward that end. Perhaps the best known theory to come out of SFI is the Integrated Information Theory*4. I have my own theory of the First Cause that led to brain systems with a sense of Self. But I won't go into that complex concept in a single post.


*2. Systems Science is an interdisciplinary field that studies the complexity of systems in nature, social or any other scientific field. Some of the systems science methodologies include systems dynamics modeling, agent-based modeling, microsimulation, and Big Data techniques.
https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/r ... ms-science

*3. Santa Fe Institute :
The Santa Fe Institute was founded in 1984 by a group of scientists frustrated with the narrow disciplinary confines of academia. They wanted to tackle big questions that spanned different fields, and they felt the only way these questions could be posed and solved was through the intermingling of scientists of all kinds: physicists, biologists, economists, anthropologists, and many others.
https://www.santafe.edu/

*4. Integrated information theory (IIT) attempts to provide a framework capable of explaining why some physical systems (such as human brains) are conscious, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrate ... ion_theory

But my eyes are closed and I am receiving no input from the external world. The number one candidate at the moment for where the dream is occurring is entirely in the brain. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. Dreams seem to be re-constituted memories. But, they sometimes seem to portray someone else's experience. However, that's probably due to lack of context, or to altered perspective. When awake, with eyes open, the context of incoming imagery is obvious. But when asleep, the brain is free to improvise, and to alter the original context. For example, I used to dream of an extremely wide residential street that may have impressed me as a small child. But that dream image was used, years later, in different contexts, perhaps to express some childish feeling of awe that, as an adult, I can't explain in words.

Some have interpreted the weirdness of dreams as a sign of an external source. Perhaps a communication from God to warn you of danger or opportunity. But most of us just accept the bizarre nature of dreams as an indication that they do not portray reality, but possibility. In the realm of infinite unfettered possibility, almost anything is possible. When asleep, the brain is literally "unfettered" by top-down conscious control : it's a Free Agent.

One theory to explain the warning or tutorial message of dreams says that the brain continues to work sub-consciously on today's complex challenges, at night when it's not occupied by conscious inputs*1. In that case, it's not God or dead relatives trying to help you, but your computer-like brain continuing to process information in the "background" when you are not aware & interfering with its work.

After centuries of philosophical & scientific & mystical speculation on the meaning of dreams, the jury is still out. So, you can make of it whatever makes sense to you. But, as you said, the general consensus today, is that the imagery of dreams is "entirely in the brain", and not signals from the outer world, or spirit realm. So, the apparent "phenomenal" content of dreams is actually a noumenal*2 reconstitution of waking experience. Does that make sense to you?



*1. The problem-solving theory is a cognitive theory of dreaming that states the function of dreams is to help people solve their ongoing problems.
https://www.picmonic.com/pathways/colle ... aming_1795

*2. Noumenal : not real, but ideal
noumenon, plural noumena, in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the thing-in-itself (das Ding an sich) as opposed to what Kant called the phenomenon—the thing .
https://www.britannica.com/topic/noumenon