The best question ever!

[Pebble]

No. And nothing I have said sugests that I would

I don't see any light thrown on the nature of genius by the nature of cerebral activity, I would ask you how it could?

Breaking my response into two independent parts misses the point. If there are 2 or more competing theories that equally explain the world as we see it, logic suggests that we should accept the theory that has least assumptions. (Occam). Thus proposing a theory with more assumptions is fine but unnecessarily complicating one's theory is not a valid way forward, otherwise every crackpot musing requires equal assessment. So where one proposes a more complex theory, it is necessary first to demonstrate clearly that there are observations that are not adequately adressed by the simpler theory. Second that the new theory helps address these issues. I would argue that you have failed at the first hurdle, but you would probably disagree. The onus is however entirely on you in respect of the second aspect. Asking me how to support your hypothesis is weird, you are proposing that you view is worthy of consideration, I am not among those clamouring for a more complex view of life.

[hunter]

Breaking my response into two independent parts misses the point. If there are 2 or more competing theories that equally explain the world as we see it, logic suggests that we should accept the theory that has least assumptions. (Occam). Thus proposing a theory with more assumptions is fine but unnecessarily complicating one's theory is not a valid way forward, otherwise every crackpot musing requires equal assessment. So where one proposes a more complex theory, it is necessary first to demonstrate clearly that there are observations that are not adequately adressed by the simpler theory. Second that the new theory helps address these issues. I would argue that you have failed at the first hurdle, but you would probably disagree. The onus is however entirely on you in respect of the second aspect. Asking me how to support your hypothesis is weird, you are proposing that you view is worthy of consideration, I am not among those clamouring for a more complex view of life.

I have not sought support from you for my ideas. That brain function should reflect the nature of genius is a suggestion you made, which is why I have asked you to elaborate.
Perhaps you ought go back and read your own posts on this thread.

[hunter]

Arguing that it is difficult to understand the connection between the evolution of the brain and high art, is fine.

All well and good if you think its fine, but how does this reflect anything I have said?

[Pebble]

The concept of our minds being some kind of field leakage from cerebral activity goes nowhere and explaines nothing of why we think or where thought comes from but does deal with the mechanism of thinking. The works of Shakespere, Bach and Tolken go along way past explanations of mind being an expression of brain function. If thats all it were why would we even have desire beyond food and sex? Life is observation enough for me to know there is more to it than we have yet shown.

You made the above assertions in response to my suggestion that the mind was an aspect of brain function. If Shakespere, Bach, and Tolkien are not being dragged into the discussion for their genius in the fields of art, why are they? Not clear that they are famous for other reasons.

So, I believe, I did not bring up the genius/art aspect you did.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

No I don't believe I am, but in the absence of observable data I find myself postulating theory and then knocking it about with reason and logic to see if it can stand up.

So you cherry pick bits of reason that fit your theory.

There's a good reason why science doesn't work this way, might be beyond your level of reason and logic though.

[Fiona]

I am utterly confused by this thread. I hope it will not be annoying if I ask a couple of questions about what has been said so far. to help me understand what is being argued.

1. Hunter, you seem to argue that the observable facts of the world show that mind is not adequately explained as a phenomenon which arises from brain activity. You are led to this conclusion because

a) the brain activity continues after the heart stops. While this might be true, I cannot see how it suggests that mind is separate from brain activity. The personality or the mind might well be the last part of us to die but it is not odd to think we die in parts, is it? I believe I read that nails and hair continue to grow for a long time after death. So I do not see that this helps your case. So long as the brain is functioning at a level which gives rise to "mind" then,arguably, you are not dead: so it is not evidence for post death persistence, is it?

b) you seem to see that brain activity is able to explain the process of thinking but to separate the process of thinking from the content of thought. I assume that the content part is the bit you see as separate ( as mind or personality in this context) but correct me if I am wrong. Thus you cite great artistic achievement as the extreme phenomenon to show that there is something more than brain activity at work. I do not really follow this. In support of this you ask why we would have desires beyond food or sex, if it were true: and I honestly cannot see how this is relevant. Why would the content be different if mind were separate? Why would a physical phenomenon necessarily be concerned with more direct need fulfillment and stop there? This seems to me to be a very strange idea. It is as if you believe that all physical process is functional but if evolution is correct this does not follow. Evolution works with what is there: it is not a designing process. So there is often redundancy and stuff which just happens.Why would consciousness be any different? ( In this connection you seem to agree with your opposition,btw: so it may be that I am the one who is out of step since I do not see functionality in the world, very much)

c. You are unhappy with the idea of personality as a side effect of brain function, because it explains nothing. I completely agree about that. It is a description but it has no explanatory force at all, if what you are interested in is the content of our thoughts. So the idea of a separate "mind" is attractive, I quite see that. The problem here is different: I can understand you might think it helps to explain the content, but so far there is no reason to suppose it exists. I am afraid I see nothing in your argument so far to suggest that it does, and this I think is where the real disagreement lies. As I understand it those who see it as a manifestation of brain function are seeing it as a bit like gravity: gravity arises from mass, but although we can see it exists and we can measure what it does, we cannot actually explain what it is in essence ( this may be wrong - it may be that we do now have such a conception: but I don't and if this analogy is not correct I hope you can see what I mean). That does not mean it is separate from mass, however. Or at least so I think. Where I will agree is that the content question is not likely to yield to reductionism. The content of thought and personality is not going to be explained by brain research and I think this is at the root of your unease, maybe. But not all who investigate the brain are convinced that everything is functional in those terms: indeed I think most are probably aware that there is more to life than that

If I have misunderstood this whole debate I would be glad to be corrected

[Pebble]

[quote=Fiona;31897] But not all who investigate the brain are convinced that everything is functional in those terms: indeed I think most are probably aware that there is more to life than that

quote]
Had hoped 'Hunter' might reply, but trail seems to have gone cold. Puzzled by your penultimate statement, Fiona. I think being 'aware' of something for which there is no evidence would not be particularly scientific. Do you have any particular researchers in mind?

I have no problems with scientists addressing claims made by others, for which there is no evidence, where they concede there is a valid argument, but investigating nonsense claims wastes time and money. The premise put by 'hunter' seems to fit in the fantasy group, neither use nor ornament. It doesn't meet the requirements of a religious stance, nor any major cult belief, so what purpose would be served by investigating this particular noton?

I agree no one has disproved this specific point but what difference would it make to the world as we know it if one's memories (I presume that is what is meant by content) persisted for a few seconds after cerebral death? First this is unlikely, second what observed phenomena does it help us resolve? PS. Why do specific brain injuries affect memory in different ways, unless the brain is entirely responsible for housing our memories?

[Fiona]

No idea what you are talking about Pebble, sorry

[hunter]

I am taking this opportunity to thank all of you whom have taken the time to speak with me. I haven't gone cold Pebble although I have been trying to extricate myself from this thread since I appologized to Dr B, without giving the impression I've gone off to sulk in the corner.

I thank Dr B, Matt, Pebble and Fiona for giving me great insight into critical thinking. I would like to say, I certainly will be reevaluating the way I present my views in the future and ofcourse these views themselves.

I would like to thank Far side of the moon and Janot for trying.

And Mulder, thankyou for according me the possibility of having a philosophy.

Fiona, please don't think that I'm running away from your questions, I simply don't yet have the skills to answer them. I think I fit into option c though.

I'm not going anywhere, I feel like my mind has just embarked on a growth spurt. I will however endevour to make more sense and better articulate my point the next time I choose to post.

I hunt for a world view devoid of falacy. I walk a long road, I know

[hunter]

A question for John,
Do threads, this one in particular, remain on the site indeffinitly, if not when do they expire?
I hope to be able to revisit this one in the future and have a laugh at my own expence, just a little unsure of when I'll be ready for it.

that'll do

[Admin]

Hi, Hunter.

The threads will stay on indefinitely.

[Mulder]

If you come back Hunter, I have a question. You seem intent on producing a philosophy that incorporates the human mind surviving bodily death. Is there some special reason for this? Do you have any evidence that this happens? Having studied this subject for decades, I have yet to come across any remotely convincing evidence of life after death so I'd be interested to know if you have any and what it is.

On the other hand, if you don't have any evidence for life after death then I'm curious as to why you are developing these ideas.

[Dr B]

I have mistakenly used the word nothing where I see I should have perhaps used the word energy. We are in agreement, I just haven't said it in the way you like to hear it

Aha!

So you are talking about energy....which was a question I asked you about 50 posts ago......8)

[Dr B]

The brain still exsists 10 minutes beyond the cessation of cardiac function but we are no longer able to relate with it as we did during its lifetime. Its theoretical particles are still in motion so to speak, but to a different affect. Because we can observe its continued existance we have no cause to doubt that it does. I acknowledge that we have many reasons to doubt the soul, spirit or mind continue. But it would be more logical if they did.

This is both factually incorrect and logically fallacious.

[Dr B]

The works of Shakespere, Bach and Tolken go along way past explanations of mind being an expression of brain function.

and these are famous brain scientists are they?