Phil Forum : Brain vs Mind

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/438405

Ok, how about we say mental states are conditioned by brain states. That way, we can talk all day about the one, without having to know anything at all about the other. — Mww

Yes. I like to say that "Mind is what the Brain does" --- its function. Just as the function of your computer is to process input information, so you can talk about that meaningful information in plain English, without using the technical computer code that does the actual processing.

A similar analogy is used by cognitive psychologist Don Hoffman in his book, The Case Against Reality. He doesn't deny the underlying coded reality, but says that we evolved to think in terms of metaphorical symbols (concepts that he calls "Icons"), rather than in terms of Neurology. That helps me to clarify the old Brain/Mind conundrum.

Underlying Reality : http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page21.html

PS__In response to the OP, you could say that Mind states are analogous to Brain states.

[Gnomon]

Do you think “the mind is what the brain does” to be just a somewhat lame effort to eliminate epiphenomenalism? — Mww

No. I think that defining the Mind as the Function of the Brain is a pragmatic explanation. Epiphenomenalism is a kind of Property Dualism, while the functional definition can be interpreted as a Substance Monism, as proposed in my Enformationism thesis. Mind is an emergent holistic property of Brain, not a sub-system of the neural net. In my view, both the material Brain and the immaterial Mind are forms of Generic Information. But that's an emergent concept in Science, not yet orthodox doctrine.

Function : an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
___Wiki
NOTE : a flatworm can perform its basic functions without a brain. But humans are not automatons, precisely because their over-sized brains can choose between options, based on rational projection of future consequences. Choice is a purposeful function.

Emergent Functionalism : In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Substance Monism : https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... sm+spinoza

Epiphenomenalism : the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epiphenomenalism/
NOTE : If the Mind has no causal effect on the physical world, how can your ideas and intentions have any effect in the outside world? Are you (your mental Self) a robot driven by automatic mechanical processes? Or do you have some freedom to choose your actions? I know, the question is moot, but I choose the freewill option. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03 ... stery-free

Brain/Mind Paradox :
Empirical Science treats the human mind as an integral function of the physical brain. But we intuitively put the mind in a different category. That's why it has traditionally been associated with a non-physical Soul, which requires a dualistic notion of humanity. The Enformationism paradigm though, is ultimately monistic, viewing Information as the single "substance" of reality. But that primordial stuff has two aspects : an active verb form, EnFormAction (energy), and a passive noun form, Information (embodied potential in material forms). The brain is enformed stuff, which converts stored Information (memory) into ideas, images, and feelings.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

lawfully transcendent functionality — Mww

Rather than defining Mind as a "transcendent" function of the Brain, I'd say it's an Emergent Function. Emergence is a natural process of Phase Change.

PS__I agree that the Mind/Body conundrum ("the hard question") is only a problem for the scientific method of Reductionism, while the philosophical method of Holism can easily explain emergent properties as potentially inherent in the parts, due to their latent Information.

[Gnomon]

Not sure how holistic and emergent can coexist simultaneously, and not sure how either is possible for humans if not for neural physics. — Mww

Holism is the concept that a single functional system (a whole thing) is "more than the sum of its parts". The "more" is an emergent property of the whole system that is not characteristic of any of its parts. I'm not sure what you meant by "coexist", but a Whole System would not exist if not for the phenomenon of Emergence. That's why I say "the Mind is an emergent property of the whole Brain".

What we call "Mind" is essentially the Consciousness function of the Neural Net. But no single node in that net is conscious. The nodes process bits & pieces of Information, but it takes a whole integrated system to become aware of the output from those processes. So yes, the neurons are necessary but not sufficient, to produce the emergent function of Consciousness.


Emergent Holism : Holism in science, or holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to one another and to the whole. . . .
David Deutsch calls holism anti-reductionist and refers to the concept as thinking the only legitimate way to think about science is as a series of emergent, or higher level phenomena.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Emergent Properties : Examples of emergent properties include cities, the brain, ant colonies and complex chemical systems.
https://sciencing.com/emergent-properties-8232868.html

NOTE : An emergent property is a property which a complex. yet integrated, system has, but which the individual members do not have.

Integrated Information Theory : http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Int ... ion_theory



“mind” being a concept of explanatory convenience — Mww

Yes. "Mind" is a term of convenience to label the non-physical Function of the Brain. Likewise, "Word Processor" is a convenient concept to stand as a symbol for all the complicated electronics going on inside your computer. In both cases, the Process is not a single physical object, but a metaphysical sequence of physical events. But some of us like to know what's going on inside that black box. :joke:

[Gnomon]

I think of function as an empirical condition....it is the function of this to do that, a necessary product of cause and effect. — Mww

The primary function (purpose) of your automobile is "transportation", which is a process, not an object. Can you put "transportation" or "consciousness" under a microscope to see its component parts? As Hume pointed out, the connection between Cause and Effect is an attribution, an association, and a label of convenience for an invisible link or relationship between things or events that have a history of occurring together. His analysis raised the Problem of Induction, which is the method of empirical Science. In practice though, most pragmatic scientists ignore Hume's quibbles, and take the causal connection for granted. Yet technically, the "invisible link" is an imaginary concept in the mind (consciousness) of the observer --- it's a belief, not an empirical fact.

Problem of Induction : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

I’m not sure I’d think of consciousness as a function. What does consciousness actually effect, and how can anything be said about its effects, when its cause is itself unknown. — Mww

Good question. Except for spoon-bending psychics, Consciousness doesn't seem to have any empirical effects on the material world. But you know from personal experience that it does affect your immaterial behavior. Your intentional activities are a function of your awareness of the environment, and of mental projections into the future, to predict possible consequences of specific behaviors. Can you say "conscious behavior" and "subconscious reflexes"?

Again, we moderns attribute conscious behavior to the brain. But ancient Egyptians imagined that the heart was the seat (cause) of the conscious Soul. Some fringe thinkers argue that the source (cause) of consciousness is out-there in the universe (Panpsychism). So, it's a matter of opinion as to the Cause of Consciousness. FWIW, my opinion is that Awareness of the external & internal milieu is a holistic function of the whole brain and body.

Function :
1. an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing.
2. Mathematics --- a relationship or expression involving one or more variables.

Behavior : the way in which a natural phenomenon or a machine works or functions.

we’ve got mind as consciousness as emergent function of brain, which seems altogether overly-complicated, for it appears to make mind practically synonymous with consciousness — Mww

Do you think it's less complicated to identify "world-changing" Consciousness with a lump of Brain Matter? Isn't that a bit simplistic? :joke:

Mind :
1. the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.

Metaphysical :
1. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality. ... Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality.

PS__By "world-changing" I refer to the sudden acceleration of Evolution after the emergence of Conscious Organisms from non-conscious Matter.

[Gnomon]

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/441467
Mind, Causality, and Evolution

the causal relevance of the mind in relation to the matter in the brain — Francis

The Mind, in the sense of Beliefs & Emotions, definitely has causal effects (psychosomatic) on human behavior. And in order to influence behavior, those immaterial feelings & beliefs must somehow cause physical changes in the brain & body, including angry outbursts and physical illness. But exactly how that works is only understood sketchily. I assume you have a layman's theory to explain that two-way causation.

I have my own layman's theory (Enformationism) of how & why Life & Consciousness emerged from lifeless & mindless matter. But, it doesn't go into detail about how Mind influences Brain. So, I'd like to see where you are coming from with your theory.

I am going to be assuming the position known as interactionism. — Francis

I wasn't familiar with the concept of "Interactionism", so I looked it up. In Sociology it's a hypothetical perspective (not yet an accepted theory) on how the social environment affects individuals, and vice-versa. But neither the sociological nor psychological applications seem to be mainstream theories at this moment. In Psychology, Interactionism appears to be an update of Cartesian Dualism : " He held that mind was distinct from matter, but could influence matter."

Interactionism :
Sociology -- "This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactionism
Psychology -- "Psychologically, interactionism refers to the theory that the mind is composed of two separate entities, mind and body, each of which affects the other."
https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/defin ... ractionism

Behavior of matter in the brain is changed from what it would have been if governed completely by the understood rules of physics and chemistry. — Francis

So this theory postulates non-physical (metaphysical) rules? What are those rules, and how do we discover them in brain studies? Are there scientific papers in which they infer those metaphysical laws?

It is a multitude of physical objects in the brain — Francis

Is this based on the Modular Mind hypothesis of how the various specialized brain areas work together to produce coordinated thoughts & behaviors?

Modular Mind : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_of_mind

Organisms who their mutations cause benefit will survive better and reproduce in greater numbers — Francis

The concept of "evolutionary benefit" sounds like either Lamarkism or NDE. Darwinian evolution doesn't assert “benefits” but only “differences” that are selected by the filter of circumstances. "Beneficial" effects assume "intentional" purposes. Again, that's not a mainstream scientific position, but I too see some signs of Intention behind Evolution.

Non-Darwinian Evolution :
http://www.biologyaspoetry.com/terms/no ... ution.html
https://projecteuclid.org/download/pdf_ ... 1200514590
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 571730339X

In the Property-Dualist Interactionist model which I subscribe to we call this other aspect of reality a non-physical property. — Francis

A "non-physical" Property of a physical object is what scientists call a "Quality" or a "Function" of the object. Causation does indeed result in new properties that were not apparent in the original parts of the system. But you seem to be implying a Metaphysical cause of some kind. I have also postulated a Metaphysical form of causation, which I call "Enformy".

Enformy : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

A first change in behavior of matter from what would be expected purely from the predictions of physics and chemistry. For convenience I will refer to this moment in evolution as the initial alteration. — Francis

In Physics a sudden "change in behavior of matter" is called a "Phase Transition". And the sudden emergence of new properties is assumed to be mysterious only because the intermediate steps happen so quickly that we can't discern the intermediate cause & effect stages. Do you have a more fine-grained explanation for something as common as liquid Water instantly becoming solid Ice, with completely different characteristics?

Phase Change : Mind as a causal force
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page70.html

the possibility that the initial alteration was due to some other unknown property other than consciousness. — Francis

A Spiritual property (Soul)? Supernatural intervention?