The implausibility of brainless minds - Faulty query

[atanu]

I have duplicated the thread because the original thread is cluttered and some questions asked of Copernicus are lost.

Most religions depend on the belief that mental activity can occur independently of brains. What one thinks of as the "soul" or "spirit" is a thinking being that can operate independently of a body. Nevertheless, the evidence continues to mount that there is absolutely no mental activity that occurs independently of brain activity. It does not contradict the idea of dualism to say that minds are dependent on brains for their existence, but it does contradict the idea that a mind can survive brain-death.

I have not seen any religioous scripture to say this. On the contrary what all scriptures teach is that the KNowledge Faculty is ONE. For example:

• Allah is One. Allah Sees. Allah knows.
• Atman is one without a second. Atman is existence, knowledge bliss.
• He is before All and All subsist in Him (Jesus). Jesus is life of beings.

All religions in fact teach that the knowledge principle is not vested in localised ego self.

With this background, what basis remains of Copernicus' assumptions and subsequent questions? Religion is not under obligation to answer questions based on false assumptions.

In the last few decades, scientists have been able to explore the tight connection between thought and brain activity through the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technology. MRI merely shows where blood concentrates in the brain when mental activity is taking place, and scientists can actually take videos of dynamic activity in the brain during specifically targeted thinking patterns. Scientists have now, for the first time, correlated dreams with volitional behavior. While this kind of experimental evidence does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that mental activity depends on brain activity, it does seem to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now there is another assumption taken as a conclusion here: the brain gives rise to mind.

This assumption again holds no water:

• Correlates are not indicative of causatives
• Brain is seen with given awareness and then the seen is being superimposed on the awareness. Just as a building after coming up says there is no ground beneath me.
• A brain is representation -- an effect of seeing. A representation is superimposed as the cause of seeing itself.
• It cannot explain as to which chemical says "I". What is the basis of Qualia of "I". It has no explanation for 'Binding Problem'. It has no explanation for the Qualia itself.
• There is no account of any inert matter to exhibit intelligence.
• Intelligence is not a true property of brain -- a dead brain, though containing all chemicals, does not proclaim its will to live.
• If intelligence is due to structure of brain, then the intelligence cannot unravel its cause. A product cannot know it cause.
• We can volitionally control states of mind.

The above are only a few.

So, if we, for the sake of argument, agree provisionally that brain may not be the original source of intelligence, then where does Copernicus's question stands?

All evidences gathered by Quantum Mechanics on the other hand do suggest a non-local intelligence, as taught by all religions.

 

[PolyHedral]

• There is no account of any inert matter to exhibit intelligence.

What is, "artificial cognition?"

• If intelligence is due to structure of brain, then the intelligence cannot unravel its cause. A product cannot know it cause.

In the course of implementing a new programming language, the final step is usually writing the compiler, which translates the programming language into the "machine language" that the computer actually understands. However, most people go a step further: they write the compiler for thier langauge in the language itself, and then test it by asking the compiler to compile itself into machine code. For most languages, this has successfully been done; a program has been created capable of "understanding" itself.

• We can volitionally control states of mind.

I think you've just offended 90% of the depressed people on Earth.

All evidences gathered by Quantum Mechanics on the other hand do suggest a non-local intelligence, as taught by all religions.

QM doesn't suggest non-local anything; that would break Relativity.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I feel there is alot that we don't yet know before any hypothesis regarding a brainless mind can be properly evaluated. Yes it seems so that it can't happen, but considering plants have been shown to have their own form of communication, to me at least, suggest that more is needed to be known before any scientific statements can be said with accuracy. And really AI has shown you don't need a brain to have a mind, just some sort of programing (which do we really have anything more than that ourselves?) And as AI advances we may have machines capable of regular human thought, no brain required.
Afterall, it used to be only humans had feelings and emotions. But many pet owners and primatologist have thoroughly disproven that idea.

 

[Willamena]

A brain is representation -- an effect of seeing. A representation is superimposed as the cause of seeing itself.
...
So, if we, for the sake of argument, agree provisionally that brain may not be the original source of intelligence, then where does Copernicus's question stands?

All evidences gathered by Quantum Mechanics on the other hand do suggest a non-local intelligence, as taught by all religions.

Well said, that first line. If I may ask, what does QM teach about non-local intelligence?

 

[atanu]

What is, "artificial cognition?"

That is not a natural but a manufactured product.

QM doesn't suggest non-local anything; that would break Relativity.

Haha. Anyway I hardly ever comprehend you.

I think you've just offended 90% of the depressed people on Earth.

This is the only point which makes this question important for me.

One can consider oneself an automaton and sometimes forget the self created problems with alcohol or drugs and further aggravate.

It is possible to act with knowledge and feel free as the reality of us is not bound to nature.

 

[atanu]

Well said, that first line. If I may ask, what does QM teach about non-local intelligence?

PolyHedral already said that. It will break Relativity.

 

[Willamena]

In the course of implementing a new programming language, the final step is usually writing the compiler, which translates the programming language into the "machine language" that the computer actually understands. However, most people go a step further: they write the compiler for thier langauge in the language itself, and then test it by asking the compiler to compile itself into machine code. For most languages, this has successfully been done; a program has been created capable of "understanding" itself.

In what capacity is the word "understanding" applicable to what you've described? Understanding occurs in the moment that information is comprehended; it is that "grasp" of meaning, composed as new information. I don't see any indication in what you've described that the machine has comprehended. It has simply automatically executed the program.

 

[Willamena]

I think you've just offended 90% of the depressed people on Earth.

Only the ones who invest in the medical industry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have not seen any religioous scripture to say this.

Then you haven't seen many religious scriptures. Many religions preach that the person - the mind - can continue to exist, act and be aware even after the death of the person's physical body.

It cannot explain as to which chemical says "I". What is the basis of Qualia of "I". It has no explanation for 'Binding Problem'. It has no explanation for the Qualia itself.

Does it need to have these things? Does your answer have them?

There is no account of any inert matter to exhibit intelligence.

What were you saying earlier about false assumptions? "Physical" does not equal "inert".

All evidences gathered by Quantum Mechanics on the other hand do suggest a non-local intelligence, as taught by all religions.

They do nothing of the sort.

However, if you think they do, you're free to explain your so-far-unsupported claim.

 

[atanu]

Then you haven't seen many religious scriptures. Many religions preach that the person - the mind - can continue to exist, act and be aware even after the death of the person's physical body.

Of course it does because it actually never broke down into pieces. And if some scientists make wrong use of science that does not mean that science is wrong. This applies to scripture too. I have cited three key scripture in my own words. Are they wrong?

Does it need to have these things? Does your answer have them?

My understanding does not require to.

What were you saying earlier about false assumptions? "Physical" does not equal "inert".

Kindly read again.

They do nothing of the sort.
However, if you think they do, you're free to explain your so-far-unsupported claim.

PolyHedral has already explained that and I have agreed.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

That is not a natural but a manufactured product.

What is the difference?

 

[PolyHedral]

That is not a natural but a manufactured product.

You never mentioned manufacturing in the section I quoted. Additionally, since nobody has invented a universe, we have to conclude it's a natural product; we can't only invent things from scratch, after all.

Haha. Anyway I hardly ever comprehend you.

Relativity forbids information travelling any distance at speeds faster than light. "Non-local," irreducible intelligence is therefore impossible. Intelligence as an emergent interaction doesn't run into this problem, because the components don't need to move faster than light.

It is possible to act with knowledge and feel free as the reality of us is not bound to nature.

No, it's not. Please do look up the acounts of those with severe depression; you'll find that "It's all in your head" is both a cliche and offensive response.

In what capacity is the word "understanding" applicable to what you've described? Understanding occurs in the moment that information is comprehended; it is that "grasp" of meaning, composed as new information. I don't see any indication in what you've described that the machine has comprehended. It has simply automatically executed the program.

It is akin to an engineer building a machine out of a somewhat vague blueprint. He does have to do some invention of his own to convert the blueprint into a working machine. (Automated compilers go a step further and, having constructed the machine code, optimize it to take out some of the puny human's mistakes.)

What is the difference?

Arbitarary human meaning.

 

[Willamena]

Arbitarary human meaning.

If there was no difference, you couldn't say this.

 

[Revoltingest]

Brainless minds seems wrong by Occam's Razor.
Mindless brains, however, seem pretty common.

 

[atanu]

What is the difference?

A manufactured product may exhibit some signs that are partially characteristic of living beings, due to design by human intelligence. The charcteristics exhibited by such a product are not inherent true caharcteristics of the constituents that make up the product or the product itself.

 

[atanu]

Brainless minds seems wrong by Occam's Razor.
Mindless brains, however, seem pretty common.

'Brain' and 'Mind' is wrong by Occam's razor, however -- IMO.

 

[Willamena]

Brainless minds seems wrong by Occam's Razor.
Mindless brains, however, seem pretty common.

Haha.

But how do you figure that "I am" has fewer constituent parts than neurons, chemicals, electricity and grey matter combining in determined processes to make "I am"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course it does because it actually never broke down into pieces. And if some scientists make wrong use of science that does not mean that science is wrong. This applies to scripture too. I have cited three key scripture in my own words. Are they wrong?

Like most religious scripture, I have no confidence that they're right, but I do think that at least in some of the cases, you've interpreted passages that refer to the nature of God in a way to make them sound like they're referring to the nature of the human soul. Brahman is a Hindu concept, not a Christian one.

My understanding does not require to.

So the matter's irrelevant. Why did you make it out to be important for Copernicus' claims, then?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

A manufactured product may exhibit some signs that are partially characteristic of living beings, due to design by human intelligence. The charcteristics exhibited by such a product are not inherent true caharcteristics of the constituents that make up the product or the product itself.

That's awfully speciesist of you. Let's say someone manufactures a device that functions like a nose...meaning it can smell thing. Why shouldn't it be considered a nose just because it's a silicon nose based instead of carbon based nose?

 

[Willamena]

That's awfully speciesist of you. Let's say someone manufactures a device that functions like a nose...meaning it can smell thing. Why shouldn't it be considered a nose just because it's a silicon nose based instead of carbon based nose?

Because there is no way for us to say that the nose device is cognizing what we recognize as "smell." It's not speciest to speak about the only sensory devices we can be sure of.