Isn't the mind and brain the same thing?
Ephemerae_inc.
I would think that even a strict materialist would say no. Certainly an intricate series of neural firings supports what we think of as the mind, but the intricate feedback loop between the working of the mind and the neural actions which support and are affected by the working of the mind strongly suggest a separate conceptual entity. It certainly develops with the brain and ceases to exist when the brain ceases to function, no dualism here, but I find the mind to be a separate entity.
To an idealist, no - the brain (and all other matter) is an 'objectification' of mind which is non- material.
Clardan
To a realist ****waves hand and says "Teacher call on me!"**** both the material and the immaterial exist in reality. A rainbow exists only in the mind, damn the pedants who draw ray diagrams to show it is merely (sic) an optical phenomenon. The rock I stubbed my toe on was real and material, the pain was real and immaterial. I didn't imagine the pain.
No, the pain was not immaterial.
farragut
Yeah, it was just the firing of neurons telling the mind "Hey dipshit, you just fuckedup. Don't do it again.
Now, was the mind's response to that firing of neurons material?
2 comments:
Materialism: the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. [freedictionary]
Although energy has no mass, since the days of the beginnings of Relavistic Theory, the Material Universe has been considered all mass, energy and the space between them.
Where the terms get difficult to conceptualize is when mind and brain are said to be the same thing, the same entity;
Entity: something having real or distinct existence; a thing, especially when considered as independent of other things. Is it instructive to think of a person's brain and their mind as distinct entities? I believe it is easier to consider a person's brain/mind as a "unity;" one does not exist without the other.
"Immatterial" is another difficult term; [you acknowledged the difficulty in you comments regarding a rainbow.] The phenomenon of pain does not exist for a person without functional pain receptors and the neural connections to the brain center that processes pain signals.
I believe classic Greek dualism was articulated in Aristotle's book, "On the Soul," where the soul was given as the entity that caused the mind to exist and "carried the mind outside the body" during life [dreams, astral projection] and after death. Most Greeks did not consider the eternal life of the soul as being actual but the Abrahamic religions jumped all over that idea. If the mind is a separate entity from its brain, such an idea gains a grip on those who desire to not die.
In a materialist sense the brain and the mind are one and the same. The mind is just the firing of neurons and synapses just like the pain receptors (for those who have them) that trigger the reflex firing of neurons and synapses to move the affected body part. The mind is just! SS different reflex. I agree that the material part of the brain that is the mind is indistinguishable from any other part of the brain, and is not in any way separate or independent of the brain, but I nevertheless find it quite useful to separate the cognitive functions of the brain from the housekeeping functions and call them the mind.
The housekeeping areas of the brain send a bunch of colorful signals from the retina to the visual cortex, where the mind creates the rainbow. The mind totally independently of the visual cortex creates the wonder and spiritual satisfaction that may be associated with it (for those who have spiritual receptors in the mind.)
Post a Comment