You seem to be taking what I am saying as a criticism of neurological
science - IT IS NOT!!! I am questioning whether a scientific viewpoint can
ever answer the types of question you are asking here. To be honest I have
dragged the discussion into my favorite part of philosophy - representation
and intervention - but you always try to drag the discussion back on to your
own home turf fo neurological science - in fact I'm not even really sure we
are still talking about the same thing here any more! I get the feeling
that you are taking my replys as an attack on your favourite discipline
which they are not meant to be - I would never question whether neurological
science was a valid contributor to our body of scientific understanding but
the question I am trying to get to here is that even if we were given a book
consisting of a complete scientific breakdown of the brain and all the
processes that occur within it, what makes you believe that that would allow
us to understand *fully* our own *innate* experience of conciousness?
Also:
>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).
Almost in complete agreement here except I do not think that the mind is non
material - I think it is a property of a system - in the same way that the
ability to make a decision is not "injected" into the constellations of
neurons in a Rat's mind by something external I don't think that our brain's
ability to be sentient is "injected" by an external soul. In short the mind
can interact with the brain because it is a property of the brain. It is
like a map of something that can redraw itself and at the same time actually
*is* the thing that it represents - in this way our mind is a property of
the network that is our brains and by the fact that it *is* the network it
can alter itself and hence interact with the brain. You can think of this
in a simplified way of self altering code running on a computer - (except
this code can change the hardware it runs on too!) - the code is still bound
by the limitations of the instruction set of the computer but the way it
works is not explained by the instruction set - it is explained only by
itself. I admit this takes a bit of thinking to understand but it really
makes sense to me!
>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.
I believe you may be right but I also believe that if this does happen then
there will be a lot more people believing the wrong things for the wrong
reasons (BTW - do not think I am antireligious - I am an ex Roman Catholic
and still have tremendous respect and admiration for many of the things that
it and other religions do for people all over the world, I just happen to
think that they are wrong on the whole God/soul issue....)
>>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.
>
No you don't answer my question. I don not mean that the brain activity is
awareness of thinking or even that thinking is awareness - what I mean is
that your definition of thinking seems to be "that process of brain activity
that leads to the subject exibiting a particular behaviour that indicates
that a decision has been made" - given this definition then saying that
because you have found and understand these patterns of brain activity that
you know what thinking is is ludicrous! This is a concealed definition!
You say that thinking is a brain process and then find a brain process that
fits your definition - you have not learnt anything new about thinking
because the word has now just become a lable for a particular brain process.
What is there to link this to the "thinking" that I experience every day? I
am not questioning the fact that these brain activities are part of/closely
related to thinking but I *am* asking how you can definitively link these
processes to the thinking which we experience directly. This kind of
question runs through almost the entire philosophy of science and while
there are many schools of thought there are no simple answers. I believe
that neurological science can give us a full description of the brain
without telling us why we experience ourselves in the way that we do!
>A quibble: The brain does not "report" anything to the soul (mind), the
soul
>is aware of what the brain does without being told.
>
But my brain is controlling my fingers and typing out the fact that I am
aware of myself. If there is no interaction between soul and brain then how
does my brain (which is typing this sentence) know that something exists
which is aware 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.
>
Yes - I fully agree - what I am sugesting is that thought (and by this I
mean my experience of thought - not your definition!) and mind will not. I
would never dream of saying that a neuroscientist would not be able to tell
me how a neuron works - but in the same way I wouldn't expect a
microprocessor designer to understand the mathematical and logical
foundations of programming!
>Of course, that is a statement of faith, but my faith is stronger than
yours
>because I am pure of heart.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but it is true that your faith in
science does appear to be rock solid. In this case then I ask the following
question - What is the foundation of modern science? And what proof is
there that it is valid other than the fact that it is scientific. Science
is justified by being scientific, which to my mind is not much of a
justification! This is not to say that it is not usefull or even correct -
even a lucky guess can be both usefull and correct - but it is certainly not
justified, and when it comes down to questions of "faith" I do not wish to
"believe" in something which is only justified within it's own world view!
Joe
