Mind and Body

[Atheist37]

What is your opinion on the question of mind and body? Do we have an eternal soul? Do spirits inhabit us in addition or perhaps in place of the soul? Is our mind a kind of a mystical energy field such as an aura? Or are we highly evolved mammals with complex brains, purely material without supernatural elements?

[Slim]

It's simply generated by the brain, in my view, and the instant the brain stops working, the mind ceases to exist.

One day, just like thunder and lightning many years ago, the processes by which this happens will be understood, and another reason to believe in "God" will have gone.

[Iain]

I understand that what Christians believe is that when someone dies and if they go to heaven that they will be in heaven fully functional. If a person loses 1/2 their brain function due to disability or an accident they will have lost a lot of their conciseness or function. If they have lost 3/4 of their brain function they lose even more of their conciseness or function. But if the whole brain dies altogether bingo out pops your entire conciseness in heaven. It doesn't make sense. Also if a new born baby dies, a baby unable to have any proper sight or understanding, does it pop out in heaven as it would be in 20 years time? I heard something about the Catholic Church realising this was a problem some time ago so they invented purgatory

[Poemind]

I hold the opinion that there is something that survives after death, but I can't of course prove that. Intuition leads me to that conclusion, as well as to my opinion that reincarnation does occur. However, I don't think that coming to these conclusions necessitates the existence of a personal god. More of a cosmic consciousness. I realize that this will be great fodder for the extreme skeptics, so let me have it.

[Atheist37]

When my nephew died in a car accident two years ago, the whole family met for dinner at the restaurant where he worked. I could feel his presence there, and I said as much. My relatives looked at me with confusion, knowing my staunch atheism, and asked me if I had a change of heart.

My answer is this: every one of us changes the world in some way, and those changes continue on even when we leave the room, leave the country, or if we die. My nephew had a certain way of experiencing the world and interacting with other people; he was a strong personality. And that personality rubbed off on people who spent a lot of time with him. The restaurant workers and the regular customers had little bits of his personality showing from time to time. Maybe a look in the eye, or a peculiar phrase he liked to say. Maybe they ordered a dinner or a cocktail that he once recommended to them. So, mostly subconsciously, I could feel him there in the room with us.

We all feel the presence of some of the heroic and special people who have lived, made their mark, and died. Thomas Jefferson, Mustafa Ataturk, Mohandes Gandhi, there are thousands of them. They live on because the ripples they created in the world continue to spread and resonate. There is no longer a creative and conscious force associated with that energy, but it exists even sometimes in the way a bartender says good night.

[mitchellmckain]

None of the above.

The mind is 100% just as much a physical entity as the body.

But it is a LIVING organism, and like all living organism it is a SELF-ORGANIZING entity.

HOWEVER, like any other living organism except the MOST primitive this self-organization does NOT occur in a vaccum, but is based on an inheritance of information. Just as the body organizes itself according to the information in its DNA inheritance, the human mind organizes itself according to the information passed to it via human communication primarily at first from the family who raises the child in which this mind grows.

[spongebob]

None of the above.

The mind is 100% just as much a physical entity as the body.

But it is a LIVING organism, and like all living organism it is a SELF-ORGANIZING entity.

HOWEVER, like any other living organism except the MOST primitive this self-organization does NOT occur in a vaccum, but is based on an inheritance of information. Just as the body organizes itself according to the information in its DNA inheritance, the human mind organizes itself accoring to the information passed to it via human communication primarily at first from the family who raises the child in which this mind grows.

Mitch, I don't see this. How can the mind be 1% physical, let alone 100%? The rest of your statement seems unrelated to the question, and it actually contradicts your previous assertion. I'd like to understand where you are coming from.

Oh, and I would suggest focusing more on the opening post by Atheist37, and less on the poll questions.

[mitchellmckain]

Mitch, I don't see this. How can the mind be 1% physical, let alone 100%? The rest of your statement seems unrelated to the question, and it actually contradicts your previous assertion. I'd like to understand where you are coming from.

Well I have slowly learned that the word "physical" does have some ambiguity in its popular usage, where it seems to mean something like "touchable" or "tangible". I even had someone tell me that light wasn't physical, which was quite a surprising thing for me to hear. It seemed to me that everything that physics describes is necessarily physical and therefore even though light isn't touchable in the usual sense, it most certainly is a complete physical thing, as are electrons, chemical bonds and gravity. The human mind may not be touchable but it is a self organizing entity in a completely physical media, i.e. the electro-chemical signals by which information is processed in the human brain.

You are apparently one of these non-science people with this sort of peculiar understanding of the word "physical". I would suggest that some of this is derived by an a-priori naive and unexamined stance on the mind-body problem which assumes dualism and thus that "physical" refers to the body alone and has nothing to do with the mind. However that ignores the long debate on this question and the other positions on the question, like physicalism which considered the mind and body to simply be different elements in the same physical reality.

My explanation most certainly DOES NOT contradict my previous assertion. I absolutely deny that the mind is found in some spiritual dimension of existence like the soul or Plato's dimension of ideas. Physics is the science that looks at the world through the lens of mathematics and I most certainly assert that the mind is a physcial phenomena that can be described by the same mathematics that can describe the process of life in other media.

Oh, and I would suggest focusing more on the opening post by Atheist37, and less on the poll questions.

The title and poll questions are part of the persons OP and I most certainly reserve the right to respond to what interests me and no more or less than that. But I will take this as an expression of your interest in my answers to the questions in the OP, so I will do so.

------------------

What is your opinion on the question of mind and body?

In regards to the classic philosophy question known as the mind-body problem, you can say that I am a dual aspect physicalist who nevertheless has a metaphysics that includes a spiritual dimension to reality.

Although I am physicalist, saying that the mind and body are equally physical, there is an effective dualism that arises from asserting that mind and body are in a large sense two different living organism. There is a lot of interdependence but there is also some competition or conflict between the very different needs of these two different organisms.

Do we have an eternal soul? Do spirits inhabit us in addition or perhaps in place of the soul?

I have addressed these questions already in another thread recently in the Chrisitan section, with the obviously related title.

Is our mind a kind of a mystical energy field such as an aura?

No it is not. It is a self-organizing dynamic structure in the information flow of the human brain.

Or are we highly evolved mammals with complex brains

Yes we are evolved. Yes we are mammals with a particularly complex brain with a lot of functionality devoted to the use of language. We can see a lot of this functionality to a lesser degree in the Bonobo monkeys.

Or are we purely material without supernatural elements?

However the above is simply a transitory and peripheral physical existence, which is acutally just a seed or a fertile soil in which our true being grows. Our true self is purely spiritual and eternal, a product of our choices in life, but this does not mean disembodied because our spiritual existence includes a spritual body.

[spongebob]

Well I have slowly learned that the word "physical" does have some ambiguity in its popular usage, where it seems to mean something like "touchable" or "tangible". I even had someone tell me that light wasn't physical, which was quite a surprising thing for me to hear. It seemed to me that everything that physics describes is necessarily physical and therefore even though light isn't touchable in the usual sense, it most certainly is a complete physical thing, as are electrons, chemical bonds and gravity. The human mind may not be touchable but it is a self organizing entity in a completely physical media, i.e. the electro-chemical signals by which information is processed in the human brain.

OK, don't know who suggested that "light" wasn't a physical entity. That's just plain wrong. Even a casual understanding of photons breaks down that argument.

You are apparently one of these non-science people with this sort of peculiar understanding of the word "physical". I would suggest that some of this is derived by an a-priori naive and unexamined stance on the mind-body problem which assumes dualism and thus that "physical" refers to the body alone and has nothing to do with the mind. However that ignores the long debate on this question and the other positions on the question, like physicalism which considered the mind and body to simply be different elements in the same physical reality.

You are making some erroneous and, ahem...ignorant, assumptions these days, Mitch. (see if you can figure this out) So, It appears that you are going after the position that the mind is physical because of the biochemical nature of the brain. OK, that actually answers my question. The subtle insults were not necessary in your response. All I was after was understanding where you were coming from. I don't altogether disagree, btw. When you pose it that way, I can see your point. But the "mind", as in "thought", is something of no physical essence, I think you would agree. But the process by which a *thought* is created most certainly is grounded in a physical process---neurons! Can't get more physical than that.

This is kind of the classic argument of the mind as compared to Windows XP. In a purist's sense, neither of these is physical. But in a practical sense, both need a physical medium to be manifested in any way, whatsoever. BTW, I'm NO purist!

My explanation most certainly DOES NOT contradict my previous assertion. I absolutely deny that the mind is found in some spiritual dimension of existence like the soul or Plato's dimension of ideas. Physics is the science that looks at the world through the lens of mathematics and I most certainly assert that the mind is a physcial phenomena that can be described by the same mathematics that can describe the process of life in other media.

Sure it does! And you are going off on a tangent here. You first stated that the mind is 100% physical, yet you also made the argument that the mind is "...based on an inheritance of information". *Information* is most certainly NOT physical, no matter how the mind conducts it's business, be it neurons or supernatural transference. So, understand, I'm not taking a contrary position here; I'm just pointing out that this assertion of "information" does nothing to support the argument of the mind being physical. Think of it this way. If ghosts were real, then your argument would have no validity whatsoever because a ghost could convey information, yet ghosts possess no physical existence, no brain or neurons with which to produce thoughts. They are a disembodied spirit. But we know that ghosts are not real, and information is not physical, yet to get information into reality, a physical process is required...thus the brain!

The title and poll questions are part of the persons OP and I most certainly reserve the right to respond to what interests me and no more or less than that. But I will take this as an expression of your interest in my answers to the questions in the OP, so I will do so.

There's no need to take offense to this. I was only suggesting that Atheist37's initial post was much better at describing the question than the poll questions, which tend to be more discrete and limiting. But of course you are free to respond any way you like...

Our true self is purely spiritual and eternal, a product of our choices in life, but this does not mean disembodied because our spiritual existence includes a spritual body.

I think this is the $64,000 question that none of us actually knows the answer to. The only true way to know is to die. But then, it's too late to tell anyone else who'd still alive.

[mitchellmckain]

The subtle insults ...

Well now that's the thing with "subtle insults" ... there is always the question of whether any insults were intended at all. You don't think what you said was insulting and I don't think what I said was insulting. Perhaps "subtle insults" are best ignored completely. Whacha think?

You are making some erroneous and, ahem...ignorant, assumptions these days, Mitch. (see if you can figure this out)

You threw me for a loop and that is the truth. So are you telling me that you believe that there is some non-physical dimension to reality or not? I would have guessed not. Now I have only confusion.

So, It appears that you are going after the position that the mind is physical because of the biochemical nature of the brain.

Incorrect. It is the electrochemical nature of the mind that is at issue here NOT the nature of the brain. The question is WHAT IS THE MIND? My answer is that it is a self-organizing dynamic structure in the electrochemical information flow in the brain. Not being a dualist and not even believing that universals somehow have some existence apart from particulars, I do not see information as being something that exists without some form of energy of some kind.

But the "mind", as in "thought", is something of no physical essence, I think you would agree.

I am not even sure what you mean. Thought is a physical process in a physical living entity. The idea that some soul or spirit can somehow operate the brain or the body like some kind of puppet just isn't supportable given the scientific evidence.

But the process by which a *thought* is created most certainly is grounded in a physical process---neurons! Can't get more physical than that.

The brain is just the environment in which the mind lives and the neurons are like paths through the forest in which in can run, so speak (very loose analogy).

This is kind of the classic argument of the mind as compared to Windows XP. In a purist's sense, neither of these is physical. But in a practical sense, both need a physical medium to be manifested in any way, whatsoever. BTW, I'm NO purist!

Are you talking about hardware versus software? That would be an apt analogy. But I would NOT equate hardware with physical. The software is just as physical as the hardware. I would also say that both are essentially machines in their own way just as I would say that both the body and mind are living organisms.

Whatsa purist?

[spongebob]

You threw me for a loop and that is the truth. So are you telling me that you believe that there is some non-physical dimension to reality or not? I would have guessed not. Now I have only confusion.

OK, I'll spell it out for you since you are having such a difficult time. I'm no "non-science" guy, and I frankly find it hilarious that you would even suggest such a thing. Reading even a handful of my posts would make this very, very clear. If anything, I'm too much of a science-guy, enough that I found your comment insulting. And no, I do not believe in any non-physical dimension (read: supernatural). My post doesn't suggest that at all. All I did was ask you a question for clarification, and I even made that perfectly clear.

So, It appears that you are going after the position that the mind is physical because of the biochemical nature of the brain.

Incorrect. It is the electrochemical nature of the mind that is at issue here NOT the nature of the brain. The question is WHAT IS THE MIND? My answer is that it is a self-organizing dynamic structure in the electrochemical information flow in the brain. Not being a dualist and not even believing that universals somehow have some existence apart from particulars, I do not see information as being something that exists without some form of energy of some kind.

I think you are just splitting hairs. What you said is qualitatively no different than what I said. I just used fewer words, expecting you understood what I meant by "biochemical nature of the brain", as in "electrochemical information flow in the brain". Same-same.

And I'm well aware of what the question is, or did you not see the word "mind" used in my last post?

But the "mind", as in "thought", is something of no physical essence, I think you would agree.

I am not even sure what you mean. Thought is a physical process in a physical living entity. The idea that some soul or spirit can somehow operate the brain or the body like some kind of puppet just isn't supportable given the scientific evidence.

You really didn't understand that comment at all. I wasn't suggesting anything to do with puppets. Look, I have in my mind at this moment an image. There is no physical representation of this image anywhere in the universe, except my own "thought". This represents information. Unless I describe this image or draw it on some medium, this information will cease to exist the moment I die. I agree that this image exists in a physical medium inside my brain because of electrochemical reactions that construct and store the information within my brain. What I'm struggling with is whether this information has any sort of existence apart from the physical medium inside my brain? Right now I'm inclined to say "no", although my intuitive reaction is to say "yes", even though I can't construct a good argument to support it.

About the only other meaningful analogy I can come up with is a snowflake. Every snowflake is unique and is a tiny record of the sudden crystallization of water in a pattern. But when this snowflake melts, this pattern is lost forever because this information was not carried on in any form, not copied or communicated by anyone or anything. So, apart from the frozen H2O, this crystal pattern never existed at all. It seems paradoxical.

But the process by which a *thought* is created most certainly is grounded in a physical process---neurons! Can't get more physical than that.

The brain is just the environment in which the mind lives and the neurons are like paths through the forest in which in can run, so speak (very loose analogy).

Yes, but you are now trying to contradict yourself again. The "brain" is "neurons"; you can't separate the two. And you already stated that the mind is the manifestation of "electrochemical information flow in the brain". All these things are just nuanced ways of saying the same thing. So, thought (which is just another way of saying "mind") is created by electrochemical information flow in the brain, a.k.a neurons, a.k.a., the brain!

This is kind of the classic argument of the mind as compared to Windows XP. In a purist's sense, neither of these is physical. But in a practical sense, both need a physical medium to be manifested in any way, whatsoever. BTW, I'm NO purist!

Are you talking about hardware versus software? That would be an apt analogy. But I would NOT equate hardware with physical. The software is just as physical as the hardware. I would also say that both are essentially machines in their own way just as I would say that both the body and mind are living organisms.

Uh...nevermind...tangent.

Whatsa purist?

I really can't tell if this is a joke or a serious question. If it's a joke, then "ha, ha". If not, then...nevermind...

[mitchellmckain]

OK, I'll spell it out for you since you are having such a difficult time. I'm no "non-science" guy, and I frankly find it hilarious that you would even suggest such a thing. Reading even a handful of my posts would make this very, very clear. If anything, I'm too much of a science-guy, enough that I found your comment insulting.

So your training in science is... what?

You threw me for a loop and that is the truth. So are you telling me that you believe that there is some non-physical dimension to reality or not? I would have guessed not. Now I have only confusion.

And no, I do not believe in any non-physical dimension (read: supernatural). My post doesn't suggest that at all. All I did was ask you a question for clarification, and I even made that perfectly clear.

See now that is what confuses me. You say that you don't believe in any non-physical dimension of reality but you say that you don't see how the mind could be 1% let alone 100% physical. That looks like a contradicition to me. If you don't believe in any non-physical dimension to reality then how could anything be other than 100% physical?

Incorrect. It is the electrochemical nature of the mind that is at issue here NOT the nature of the brain. The question is WHAT IS THE MIND? My answer is that it is a self-organizing dynamic structure in the electrochemical information flow in the brain. Not being a dualist and not even believing that universals somehow have some existence apart from particulars, I do not see information as being something that exists without some form of energy of some kind.

I think you are just splitting hairs. What you said is qualitatively no different than what I said. I just used fewer words, expecting you understood what I meant by "biochemical nature of the brain", as in "electrochemical information flow in the brain". Same-same.

Science is very much about splitting hairs and atoms and just about everything else. Without precise language there is no science.

And I'm well aware of what the question is, or did you not see the word "mind" used in my last post?

Then why don't you give your answer for the question? Pehaps if you did that, you would go a long way towards clearing up some of the confusion in this discussion.

Look, I have in my mind at this moment an image. There is no physical representation of this image anywhere in the universe, except my own "thought". This represents information. Unless I describe this image or draw it on some medium, this information will cease to exist the moment I die. I agree that this image exists in a physical medium inside my brain because of electrochemical reactions that construct and store the information within my brain. What I'm struggling with is whether this information has any sort of existence apart from the physical medium inside my brain? Right now I'm inclined to say "no", although my intuitive reaction is to say "yes", even though I can't construct a good argument to support it.

Ahhhh! So your struggling is the cause of this confusion in what you have been saying to me. I have no such struggling or confusion. It is clear to me that information has NO sort of existence apart from its "medium".

About the only other meaningful analogy I can come up with is a snowflake. Every snowflake is unique and is a tiny record of the sudden crystallization of water in a pattern. But when this snowflake melts, this pattern is lost forever because this information was not carried on in any form, not copied or communicated by anyone or anything. So, apart from the frozen H2O, this crystal pattern never existed at all. It seems paradoxical.

That is not necessarily true. The pattern extends somewhat beyond the H20 if it exists in an interactive environment altering the motion of photons and air molecules that collide with it, unless it is in complete darkness and in a perfect vacuum. Only in the latter case, can you say it is a pattern in frozen H20 alone, but then it puzzles me that you think that the pattern should somehow have existed apart from the pattern?

Now if you look at the snow flake or take a picture (via those interacting photons) then a representation of the pattern will be imprinted upon an image either in the mind or in the picture.

The brain is just the environment in which the mind lives and the neurons are like paths through the forest in which in can run, so speak (very loose analogy).

Yes, but you are now trying to contradict yourself again.

I am trying to WHAT?!?

The "brain" is "neurons"; you can't separate the two.

Incorrect. The brain is not the neurons and yes I can seperate the two. The neurons are one of the components of the brain, just as roads are one component of the environment in which we live.

And you already stated that the mind is the manifestation of "electrochemical information flow in the brain". All these things are just nuanced ways of saying the same thing. So, thought (which is just another way of saying "mind") is created by electrochemical information flow in the brain, a.k.a neurons, a.k.a., the brain!

LOL

Are you talking about hardware versus software? That would be an apt analogy. But I would NOT equate hardware with physical. The software is just as physical as the hardware. I would also say that both are essentially machines in their own way just as I would say that both the body and mind are living organisms.

Whatsa purist?

Uh...nevermind...

okey dokey

[humanguy]

From Wikipedia: "Mind is the aspect of intellect and consciousness experienced as combinations of thought, perception, memory, emotion, will and imagination, including all unconscious cognitive processes."

Basically it's just electricity. No big-human-type-brain, no mind. Nothing metaphysical or supernatural about it. Works for me!

[mitchellmckain]

None of the above.

The mind is 100% just as much a physical entity as the body.

Just to point out some of the subtlety that may have been lost on some people. I ask you to notice that I did not say that the mind was 100% physical. What I said was that it was just as physical as the body. You see, I DO believe that there is a non-physical aspect to reality and that there is interaction between the physical and the non-physcial (or spiritual) and that this interaction is part of the process of life.

My point was simply to deny this traditional dualistic type thinking that sees the mind as something non-physical like in most of the options in the poll, because as I said in my discussion with spongebob, the scientific evidence simply cannot support the idea that a non-physical entity operates the body like some kind of puppet. Thus in my view the link between the physical and the spritual is something much more subtle that - something that science and its methodology would never see as significant. The mind is a physical living organism like the body and it can die just as the body can die.

[humanguy]

None of the above.

The mind is 100% just as much a physical entity as the body.

Just to point out some of the subtlety that may have been lost on some people. I ask you to notice that I did not say that the mind was 100% physical. What I said was that it was just as physical as the body. You see, I DO believe that there is a non-physical aspect to reality and that there is interaction between the physical and the non-physcial (or spiritual) and that this interaction is part of the process of life.

You think that there's a non-physical aspect to the human body?