Joe Kilner wrote in message <78ir9a$ovj$1 at pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
>>I don't think I made myself clear here.
To the contrary, you make yourself quite clear. You reject my distinction
between brain activity and awareness by the soul (mind) of that brain
activity. I say the brain thinks and the soul (mind) is aware of the
thoughts of the brain. You say you wish to retain causal powers for the soul
(mind), this is an ancient argument of course. I opt for a physical universe
that is a closed system with no place for the injection of energy by a
non-material soul (mind).
I say that the alternative to accepting a material brain that is capable of
thinking and deciding is to turn to religion and the spiritual world. I
argue that this is premature, I think it will be another fifty years before
the tide turns and religion becomes ascendant over materialism. It is not
until the neuroscientists have worked out the molecular actions of the
neuron that we shall agree that this is not enough, in the meantime we must
work within the material universe.
>What I am asking is this: What leads you believe that just
>because this brain activity occurs alongside with, and in intricate
>connection to, decision making that it actually *is* thinking.
I have never said (except in error) that the brain is aware, it is the soul
that is aware. The use of "thinking" as a synonym for "being aware" causes
endless argument and confusion. It is at the root of Turing's Test and
Searle's Chinese Room. A machine could perform all the operations of a
mammalian brain without being a soul, but how could we publish a paper to
show that a Chinese Room need not have a soul associated with it. Still it
might, but that is religion and not profitable to a philosopher.
>But we can never see a thought - how do you know
>that the decision ensues "because" of the brain activity instead of the
>brain activity ensuing "because" of the decision. How do you know that
>they
>are not both caused by a third "invisible" occurrence? How do you know
that
>the causality we are referring to operates in the same direction of time
>that we do
Theoretical physicists do get carried away. If you go lower than molecules
in biology you will run into trouble. My argument is that if we look at the
molecules involved and forget quantum mechanics we can understand (or are
beginning to understand) what makes the neuron tick. (See The Neuron,
Levitan and Kaczmarek.)
>If again you are
>going to say that that is because the parts of my brain decide and then
>report it to "my soul" (some magical thing that feels like it is in control
>but isn't and that can observe without interacting) then you must have a
>very different experience of existence to the one that I have!
Possibly. It is not given to a man (soul) to be aware of another man's
awareness. (The inverted spectrum and all that.) But I venture our awareness
(yours and mine) are much the same.
A quibble: The brain does not "report" anything to the soul (mind), the soul
is aware of what the brain does without being told.
>Well I'm afraid I'm just a computer scientist who has a foundation in the
>philosophy of science and physics - my knowledge of neuroscience in
>particular is not that great - I never pretended it was - but my whole
>point
>is to question whether neuroscience is at all relevant
>when you try to go from a description of the brain to an explanation of it!
Try that argument on your neighborhood neurologist.
Seriously, why derogate a science. If a neuroscientist is not qualified to
tell you how a neuron works, then who is? The nervous system (and the brain)
is an agglomeration of neurons and will, in time, yield to scientific
investigation.
Of course, that is a statement of faith, but my faith is stronger than yours
because I am pure of heart.
Ray
Those interested in how the brain works might look at
www.wsg.net/~rscanlon/brain.html