One of the ways that we lose our mental abilities is through the development of brain lesions. Whether from various diseases, traumas, other other sources, they all appear to end the same way, with some sort of disruption of mental facilities. While the lesion can be devastating and disruptive to an individual, it provides the opportunity for researchers to look at the mind that ethics and modern science would otherwise not allow. In experiments, good scientists look to control for every factor that they can. Experimenting with the human mind or brain, there have been temporary ways to knock out part of the brain as in the Wada test or through the use of TMS. However, to permanently remove some part of the brain would be unethical. With lesions of the brain, nature has made these temporary knock-outs permanent and has also made them (generally) very focally. Through the use of brain imaging techniques and behavioral assays, the location of the lesion can generally be identified. When a lesion is identified, testing to see how the loss of a certain part of the brain can begin.
Although some are not exact definitions of the lesion technique, the following names have offered much to the study of the brain through their loss of. Phineas Gage is probably one of the best known examples of the lesion. While working on a railroad in the 19th century, a tamping rod exploded and shot through the skull of Gage. He survived the accident, but his friends would later describe him as, "Gage was no longer Gage." It appears that the part of the brain that was lost in the accident was part of the system for regulating emotions and drive. Another example would include the man H.M. As a boy he suffered intractable seizures from epilepsy. His doctor (Scoville) decided to remove the areas from where the seizures were originating, which happened to be approximately 2/3 of the hippocampus, and surrounding area as well as the amygdala bilaterally. After the surgery it appeared that he had no memory for the present and was unable to form new memories. Years of testing (the rest of his life) has offered great insights into the function of the hippocamus and its role in memory. The last example is similar to H.M. Clive Wearing a former world class musician suffered encephalitis caused by the herpes virus which bilaterally wiped his hippocampus. He currently displays profound amnesia and has been dubbed "memento" (later a movie by the same name).
These are just three examples of thousands which demonstrate the accuracy and the power of the lesion method. Lesions in all parts of the brain are able to demonstrate the power and the function of these certain areas. While it is interesting to think about how the lesion method can teach us, piece by piece how the brain functions, it is also interesting to look at lesions in children. It appears that children are often able to recover and cope with the loss of certain brain areas fairly well. It is amazing to think about the plasticity and the adaptability of the brain at a young age.
The University of Iowa has the largest database of lesion patients. With the collaboration of the University Hospital and the patients themselves, the college is able to watch, learn and research with these interesting cases of the brain. It will be interesting to see what the lesion method can teach me.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Lesions
One of the ways that we lose our mental abilities is through the development of brain lesions. Whether from
Sunday, May 24, 2009
AI
Today's post will be short, but I will pick up the topic sometime soon. I don't have much time since it takes about six hours to celebrate four years of work. I'm graduating!
I have heard a lot of speculation about the new Terminator Salvation movie and have started thinking more about AI. This spring I took Intro to Computer Science as well as Philosophy of the Mind. Almost the perfect combination for talking about AI. In terminator, there is a computer, Skynet which becomes self-aware and decides to terminate the human race with an army of terminators. While this movie may have been made just to entertain us with action and adventure, it does raise some valid questions about the future of humans and our relationship with technology.
According to Moore's law, the rate of computing power growth is exponential and describes the long-term trend of many different computing functions. Mankind has never seen something with this growth pattern that has lasted this long. There is increasing belief that this growth pattern is heading toward "the singularity", the point at which this accelerating change creates superintelligence. It has been theorized that after the singularity, intelligent technology will begin to produce more intelligent technology at a pace more rapid than humans. While this post is not meant to sound prophetic, it is only a look to the future. I find the mind so interesting, that to be able to explore artificial minds would be a wonder.
There will be more to come soon about AI, but for now I have to go graduate.
I have heard a lot of speculation about the new Terminator Salvation movie and have started thinking more about AI. This spring I took Intro to Computer Science as well as Philosophy of the Mind. Almost the perfect combination for talking about AI. In terminator, there is a computer, Skynet which becomes self-aware and decides to terminate the human race with an army of terminators. While this movie may have been made just to entertain us with action and adventure, it does raise some valid questions about the future of humans and our relationship with technology.
According to Moore's law, the rate of computing power growth is exponential and describes the long-term trend of many different computing functions. Mankind has never seen something with this growth pattern that has lasted this long. There is increasing belief that this growth pattern is heading toward "the singularity", the point at which this accelerating change creates superintelligence. It has been theorized that after the singularity, intelligent technology will begin to produce more intelligent technology at a pace more rapid than humans. While this post is not meant to sound prophetic, it is only a look to the future. I find the mind so interesting, that to be able to explore artificial minds would be a wonder.
There will be more to come soon about AI, but for now I have to go graduate.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Humor - You Make Me Smile
With most of the posts so far, I have either read a couple books or articles or been able to follow some sort of outline of experience with the topic. Here however, that will all change. What makes us smile? Why do we laugh? For what reason did we evolve humor? Why does laughing make me feel so good? Are funny people more attractive because of the way they make others feel? Why are some things funny to some people and not to others?
I love to laugh. I also love people that make me smile. It is amazing to find someone that you just can't stop smiling because of. I think humor and laughter are one of the closest things that we can share with someone. To be able to appreciate or have a similar sense of humor as someone means that you are probably very similar to that person in some sense. I often find that people look for friends that have a similar sense of humor as them. It's odd how we can bond over something that people may call frivolous or silly. Is the purpose of laughter to help us to relax, to make us happy, to put us at ease? The smile seems to be a cross-cultural sign of happiness and openness. So it seems that laughter is born into us.
However, how does laughter and humor actually work in the brain? To be honest, I have no idea (not to say that I have a real grasp on the other topics). If I was to guess, I would say that there would be some higher order cortical reasoning, perhaps in the frontal lobes combined with limbic system activation. But, sometimes when I study or think about something like this, I wonder if I do really want to know. Does learning about how something exactly works give a more full appreciation of something? I often say that I don't want to learn about something because it takes away from the fun and the mysterious aspects. Santa Claus is a lot more fun and intriguing when he is a jolly old man who flies reindeer and lives in the North Pole than when he is your parents. I guess this raises some of the ethical questions regarding neuroscience. Do we want to pinpoint areas in the brain that tell us someone is lying, a racist, ect.? There is a huge power in uncovering the inner workings of the mind. It has been protected by the other minds problem for years. How do we truly know that other people have minds and that they work like my own? By uncovering the mysteries of the mind, we are not only saying that other people have minds, but we are showing exactly how they work and what they are doing.
While these questions are raised, I am too curious to be detered by losing the mystery of the mind. While losing the mystery, it will be far to interesting to see what we can't now. It may also only open up a new realm of questions and mystery. How can we know when the search is over? It is so interesting to at least think that there is an infinite number of possibilities to study and research in the mind. So while I love to laugh and be humerous, today I can just live with that, however, tomorrow perhaps, I will look into how it works.
Smile - Robert Randolph and the Family Band
I love to laugh. I also love people that make me smile. It is amazing to find someone that you just can't stop smiling because of. I think humor and laughter are one of the closest things that we can share with someone. To be able to appreciate or have a similar sense of humor as someone means that you are probably very similar to that person in some sense. I often find that people look for friends that have a similar sense of humor as them. It's odd how we can bond over something that people may call frivolous or silly. Is the purpose of laughter to help us to relax, to make us happy, to put us at ease? The smile seems to be a cross-cultural sign of happiness and openness. So it seems that laughter is born into us.
However, how does laughter and humor actually work in the brain? To be honest, I have no idea (not to say that I have a real grasp on the other topics). If I was to guess, I would say that there would be some higher order cortical reasoning, perhaps in the frontal lobes combined with limbic system activation. But, sometimes when I study or think about something like this, I wonder if I do really want to know. Does learning about how something exactly works give a more full appreciation of something? I often say that I don't want to learn about something because it takes away from the fun and the mysterious aspects. Santa Claus is a lot more fun and intriguing when he is a jolly old man who flies reindeer and lives in the North Pole than when he is your parents. I guess this raises some of the ethical questions regarding neuroscience. Do we want to pinpoint areas in the brain that tell us someone is lying, a racist, ect.? There is a huge power in uncovering the inner workings of the mind. It has been protected by the other minds problem for years. How do we truly know that other people have minds and that they work like my own? By uncovering the mysteries of the mind, we are not only saying that other people have minds, but we are showing exactly how they work and what they are doing.
While these questions are raised, I am too curious to be detered by losing the mystery of the mind. While losing the mystery, it will be far to interesting to see what we can't now. It may also only open up a new realm of questions and mystery. How can we know when the search is over? It is so interesting to at least think that there is an infinite number of possibilities to study and research in the mind. So while I love to laugh and be humerous, today I can just live with that, however, tomorrow perhaps, I will look into how it works.
Smile - Robert Randolph and the Family Band
Friday, May 22, 2009
Scent
What really makes a memory vivid in your mind? Most of the memories that I have, I can remember what I see, sometimes I can remember some things that I heard. But the memories that are the most lifelike are the ones in which I can remember the smells. The sense of smell, olfaction is closely related to taste and also has a very strong influence on emotions. However, beyond these functions smell is also essential for finding food, avoiding dangerous things and finding a mate. I think that smell is often the most overlooked sense that we possess. If you have ever asked someone what sense they would give up, it is often between taste and smell for the sense that is given up. Often people don't recognize the importance or the experience of smell until they are sick and have a stuffed nose. I want to take the time now and talk about how important this sense is to me.
I first started to understand the importance of smell a few years ago when I read the book, The Emperor of Scent. The story describes a scientist (who is also a connoisseur of the nose) proposing a theory about how we smell and the process that he goes through to publish and also propose his theory to the scent makers. It was here that I began to recognize all that I take my sense of smell for granted for.
Olfaction actually occurs through the binding of molecules to the olfactory epithelium. This ligands stimulate olfactory receptors on the dendrites of olfactory receptor neurons. This occurs either through diffusion or through binding to specific proteins. This action triggers a cascade of second messengers mediated through g-proteins. The specific pattern of conformational changes of the proteins paired with the specific pattern of chemical changes maps onto a cognitive map of axonal activation which describes a broad range of aromas. The activation of certain projections will produce the sense of different smells depending on which projections are stimulated or depressed. The sense of smell is interesting because to some extent it is the only sense which uses direct stimulation of the nerves. The projections of the olfactory neurons combine to form the olfactory nerve. The synapsing of the projections in the olfactory bulb begin the process of divergence for the projections of the olfactory system. Some projections continue on to the olfactory cortex, while others converge into glomeruli which are composed of Mitral cells. These cells synapse onto five other area of the cerebrum, including most importantly the amygdala and the entorhinal cortex. The entorhinal cortex projects to the amygdala which is involved in the emotion of the sense of smell and it also projects to the hippocampus which is involved in the memory of smell. The close ties of the olfactory system with the limbic and memory systems place the importance of smell in emotional and place memory.
Before going into deeper detail here, I want to mention some of the other functions of smell. Combining the sense of smell with the sense of taste produces flavor. It is amazing to think that there are essentially five different tastes but hundreds of smells, thus to produce a certain flavor, a different combination of smells is used with a base layer of tastes. This technique of alteration is how we are able to produce countless numbers of candies and soft drinks.
Another important function of olfaction is the detection of pheromones. Pheromones are a chemical signature which causes a reaction in other members of a species. Related to humans, I speak of sexual pheromones. During ovulation a women's sense of smell is the strongest. This relates to the results that olfaction is used to detect the MHC genes which are useful in the immune system. Partners look for a partner to have a different MHC gene combination so as to strengthen the immune system of their offspring.
Back to the emotional and memory connections of smell. Its odd how a quick whiff of a smell can almost literally transport you back in time to a specific memory. The use of smells in certain situations seems to take advantage of the emotional connections of smell and memory. From the use of perfume or cologne for special occasions or the cooking of special meals for occasions help to strengthen memories by using this olfactory pathway which connects the amygdala and the other memory systems. Smell seems to be the only other sense which can elicit such strong memories in my mind besides hearing, specifically music. There are a few songs which seem to be able to take me back to a memory, but it is the smell of certain odors which seem to bring me back and almost relive a memory. While the perception of smell is not understood completely, it will be very interesting to uncover the mysteries of the sense. It is interesting however, to take advantage of the effects of smell on memory, one that can be useful creating great memories for life.
That Smell - Lynyrd Skynyrd
I first started to understand the importance of smell a few years ago when I read the book, The Emperor of Scent. The story describes a scientist (who is also a connoisseur of the nose) proposing a theory about how we smell and the process that he goes through to publish and also propose his theory to the scent makers. It was here that I began to recognize all that I take my sense of smell for granted for.
Olfaction actually occurs through the binding of molecules to the olfactory epithelium. This ligands stimulate olfactory receptors on the dendrites of olfactory receptor neurons. This occurs either through diffusion or through binding to specific proteins. This action triggers a cascade of second messengers mediated through g-proteins. The specific pattern of conformational changes of the proteins paired with the specific pattern of chemical changes maps onto a cognitive map of axonal activation which describes a broad range of aromas. The activation of certain projections will produce the sense of different smells depending on which projections are stimulated or depressed. The sense of smell is interesting because to some extent it is the only sense which uses direct stimulation of the nerves. The projections of the olfactory neurons combine to form the olfactory nerve. The synapsing of the projections in the olfactory bulb begin the process of divergence for the projections of the olfactory system. Some projections continue on to the olfactory cortex, while others converge into glomeruli which are composed of Mitral cells. These cells synapse onto five other area of the cerebrum, including most importantly the amygdala and the entorhinal cortex. The entorhinal cortex projects to the amygdala which is involved in the emotion of the sense of smell and it also projects to the hippocampus which is involved in the memory of smell. The close ties of the olfactory system with the limbic and memory systems place the importance of smell in emotional and place memory.
Before going into deeper detail here, I want to mention some of the other functions of smell. Combining the sense of smell with the sense of taste produces flavor. It is amazing to think that there are essentially five different tastes but hundreds of smells, thus to produce a certain flavor, a different combination of smells is used with a base layer of tastes. This technique of alteration is how we are able to produce countless numbers of candies and soft drinks.
Another important function of olfaction is the detection of pheromones. Pheromones are a chemical signature which causes a reaction in other members of a species. Related to humans, I speak of sexual pheromones. During ovulation a women's sense of smell is the strongest. This relates to the results that olfaction is used to detect the MHC genes which are useful in the immune system. Partners look for a partner to have a different MHC gene combination so as to strengthen the immune system of their offspring.
Back to the emotional and memory connections of smell. Its odd how a quick whiff of a smell can almost literally transport you back in time to a specific memory. The use of smells in certain situations seems to take advantage of the emotional connections of smell and memory. From the use of perfume or cologne for special occasions or the cooking of special meals for occasions help to strengthen memories by using this olfactory pathway which connects the amygdala and the other memory systems. Smell seems to be the only other sense which can elicit such strong memories in my mind besides hearing, specifically music. There are a few songs which seem to be able to take me back to a memory, but it is the smell of certain odors which seem to bring me back and almost relive a memory. While the perception of smell is not understood completely, it will be very interesting to uncover the mysteries of the sense. It is interesting however, to take advantage of the effects of smell on memory, one that can be useful creating great memories for life.
That Smell - Lynyrd Skynyrd
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Beliefs and Finding Truth
How do we believe in our knowledge or the facts which we hold true? What leads me to believe in something? Are there certain inherent truths which make some things more believable than others? Belief is often treated as a simple from of mental representation and is part of the earliest parts of conscious thought. In an earlier post I mentioned the possibility of the existence of thoughts which do not necessarily have the physical control of neurons and which are instead controlled by thoughts themselves. This has a large impact on neuroscience, because if the concept of belief is incoherent or indefensible then any attempt to find the underlying neural processes which support it will fail. To find an area of the brain that is responsible for belief would be very political and potentially problematic in nature. If one is able to manipulate someone's beliefs or one is able to provide evidence for certain beliefs being only in our head, ramifications would spread far beyond just the discovery of something very interesting.
I actually started thinking about this topic because I stumbled across a documentary about the occult and magic. I wonder what it is about illusions or what people say that makes us believe in them. This then reminded me have a paper I read recently entitled, "Scientists See God on the Brain." Essentially parts of the brain are more active while thinking about religious beliefs. I also found a related article here in which SPECT was used to determine regions of the brain which responded to altered states of consciousness during prayer and deep meditation.
So, is belief something that is simply caused by the activity of certain brain regions. Is a belief in something a sort of self deception sometimes or a way for the brain to try to make sense of what is occurring in the world? What makes beliefs so hard to let go? Is it that we have put our faith and trust into something that we cannot allow ourselves to think that we are wrong? Is is because our brains have wired the beliefs into our selves?
So my basic question about beliefs are whether they are formed by processes in the brain or whether they are created in the mind. If they are created in the brain, does that take away from beliefs? Is a thought which is just a pattern of neural activity somehow less personal? We would like to think that our believes are something that is earnest and something that we are truly connected to. This leads us to want to believe that our beliefs are created in the mind and part of something that is more than just biological. For many people, belief in something creates a foundation from which they can live out the rest of their lives. While I have my beliefs and thoughts on things, to me they are my opinions and if they can be shown otherwise, I will try to change my thoughts.
I wonder what can make us believe certain things? Are there things that you don't know why you believe in them? Are there things that you wish to be true but you doubt? I am not worried if beliefs are a combination of neural processes, I believe that they are there for a reason.
Belief - John Mayer
I actually started thinking about this topic because I stumbled across a documentary about the occult and magic. I wonder what it is about illusions or what people say that makes us believe in them. This then reminded me have a paper I read recently entitled, "Scientists See God on the Brain." Essentially parts of the brain are more active while thinking about religious beliefs. I also found a related article here in which SPECT was used to determine regions of the brain which responded to altered states of consciousness during prayer and deep meditation.
So, is belief something that is simply caused by the activity of certain brain regions. Is a belief in something a sort of self deception sometimes or a way for the brain to try to make sense of what is occurring in the world? What makes beliefs so hard to let go? Is it that we have put our faith and trust into something that we cannot allow ourselves to think that we are wrong? Is is because our brains have wired the beliefs into our selves?
So my basic question about beliefs are whether they are formed by processes in the brain or whether they are created in the mind. If they are created in the brain, does that take away from beliefs? Is a thought which is just a pattern of neural activity somehow less personal? We would like to think that our believes are something that is earnest and something that we are truly connected to. This leads us to want to believe that our beliefs are created in the mind and part of something that is more than just biological. For many people, belief in something creates a foundation from which they can live out the rest of their lives. While I have my beliefs and thoughts on things, to me they are my opinions and if they can be shown otherwise, I will try to change my thoughts.
I wonder what can make us believe certain things? Are there things that you don't know why you believe in them? Are there things that you wish to be true but you doubt? I am not worried if beliefs are a combination of neural processes, I believe that they are there for a reason.
Belief - John Mayer
Thinking Thoughts
In the last paper that I wrote for my undergraduate education, I wrote on the mind-body problem. How are the mind and the body connected? How do they interact with each other? However, while that might be the heart of the problem, for me, it raised other questions. In the paper I conclude that the mind arises from the physical processes of the brain and that there are emergent properties which are created in the mind which would not necessarily be predicted in the simple physical processes. So from this conclusion, I wonder how some thoughts and feelings are created.
Are there thoughts or ideas that can then be created by the emergent properties of the mind and not be directly traced back to physical causes?
How do you understand thoughts that are not directly caused by physical means?
What are some examples of these thoughts?
Could one example be how do we miss someone?
As humans, we naturally believe ourselves to be better than other creatures and thus like to believe that we are the only animals to have some of the cognitive abilities that we have. It is these abilities that we would naturally like to apply to the emergent properties of the mind. I wonder whether this is actually true or not. It is interesting to wonder what thoughts we have that might be created by other thoughts.
I want to explore missing someone. We have thoughts about a person, different feelings, experiences, memories, opinions, ect. But it is not these that actually make us miss them. There are thoughts about these are thoughts. What is it to miss someone, a wish for someone to be with or near you? How long does it take for a person to be gone to miss them? Can you miss someone who is with you? When you miss a person, you have a wish or a desire for that person which is not fulfilled. We may assume that there could be a biological basis behind having thoughts about wanting something and feeling bad for not having that thing. However with a person, I think that there is so much more. There is reflection and thinking about that person which brings to mind the reasons why you may miss them. When thinking about these reasons, and realizing that the impetus of those memories or thoughts isn't there creates a feeling of loss. So while I concluded that the mind arises from the brain, it appears that there are emergent properties of the mind that can inturn interact with the brain. It is interesting how these good thoughts and memories when combined with a person not being there can make someone feel not as good, to make them feel that the miss someone.
I'll end this post by attaching my paper...
When a theory is described as “satisfactory” and “resolving” one must be careful to describe the connotations and implications of what that means. Here satisfactory is taken to mean that the theory is not perfect in all respects, however, as a whole, or along the right lines the theory is correct. Resolving is thus taken to mean that a straightforward solution is provided by the theory at hand. The previous theories proposed as solutions have their respective supporters and doubters, but they all have flaws and problems that do not make them the best candidate for solving the mind-body problem. Although the theory here may have its doubters, it provides a concrete and realistic explanation of how the mind and body relate.
The main issue or contention with the mind-body problem is not definitively how the mind and body relate, but in whatever way that they do meet, how does this affect other parts of life and person. There are many different subjects that are discussed in the philosophy of the mind, including but not limited to, death, perception, personhood, emotion, free will and the self. When adopting a certain frame of the mind-body problem, certain restraints are placed upon you in how you view and perceive these related topics. It is difficult to adopt a position and be able to defend all parts of what we often hold special as humans with just that position. The variety of theories of the mind-body problem appear to have various tradeoffs based on their strengths and weaknesses in describing the relationship at interest. The problem of the mind-body problem appears to be that as humans, we want our cake and to eat it to. This anthropocentric view of human kind as being special beings means that we want everything to work as we wish it. Man wants to consider himself special, as he is the only one to be born or possess this special characteristic of consciousness, unwilling to assign it to creatures or objects, not like himself. Most people believe that they want to be responsible for the choices that they make, that they know that other people are themselves conscious and that it is not through a serious of miracles that we live our everyday lives.
Specifically related to free will, it is generally contested that monists (who view the mind and body as arising from the same substance) follow a path which leads to determinism, which states that decisions are determined by natural laws, which would indicate that people are not free (in their decision making). Dualists on the other hand, view the mind and body as separate thus allowing for the mind to act independent of the body and thus act upon it. However, if the mind is separate from the body, and the mind only interacts with one specific body, how do we know that other people are conscious creatures like ourselves? Phenomenology on the other hand, brackets the questions that are largely at stake in the mind-body problem and instead attempts to offer an objective description of experiences. So until this point it appears when choosing a theory of the mind-body problem, one has to be mindful of the tradeoffs made in choosing a certain theory. The following theory proposes satisfactorily a resolution to the mind-body problem.
Since each attempt to answer the mind-body problem encounters substantial problems, it is of contention that perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the conceptual framework of the problem. It is perhaps not a “problem” it may be that the mind and body are the same thing, not necessarily in the ways described in monism, but in that the human experience can be described in metal and physical terms. It becomes a problem when the descriptions are used interchangeably or in the field opposite of where they should describe. This view is similar to the mind-brain identity theory in that the mind and brain are viewed as two sides of the same token. The example of sense (mental) and reference (physical) is used to describe this theory.
At this point in the theory we understand that the mental and physical are two sides to the same concept. However, it is the contention of this theory that it is the physical from which the mental emerges. Here one might confuse this point as Hasker’s middle way, “emergent dualism”, however, it is actually the inverse, “emergent materialism.” One can view the conscious from the top down or the bottom up. In the first of many analogies, a fire can be viewed from above and be seen as smoke, which is analogous to the mental states, or one can view a fire from the ground and see it as a fire, the physical. Many have heard the phase, “there is no smoke without a fire,” and in this analogy, it means that there can be no mental states without the physical. While this does not directly go back the other way, the physical does depend on the mental states which are them selves physical. By not placing the mental outside of the realm of the physical, it can be stated that the mental and physical interact. Another analogy for emergentism is that of water. When hydrogen and oxygen gases combine to form liquid water, new properties emerge that would not have been predicted from the materials that it emerged from. Thus the physical properties of the brain give rise to the mental states.
In Hasker’s middle way he decides to reject materialism, stating that materialism cannot account for a unity of consciousness if consciousness is simply neurons firing synchronously. However, in this present theory, biological materialism is fully supported. It is the view of this theory that mental phenomena are caused by neurobiological processes in the brain and that the brain is able to produce intentionality. Although the process about how this occurs is not exactly known, it should not be assumed that we will never know. McGinn states that we cannot resolve the mystery of the mind-brain problem. Although he too supports a naturalistic approach to how consciousness arises, he claims that cognitive closure does not allow us to ever fully grasp the mind-body connection (more on this later). Two propositions for how consciousness arises are proposed in the present theory. In one view, there is a specific coalition of neurons which act and fire in a specific way for stimuli both in the environment and internally. In the other view, neurons in the brain fire in synchrony and assemble to arise as a cohesive units from moment to moment while incorporating feedback from the body.
It is the argument of this essay that “emergent materialism” is a theory that is sufficient and resolves the mind-body problem. To summarize the argument of the theory, one should be reminded of the three parts that compose the theory. First, “emergent materialism” states that there is a linguistic problem with how the mind-body problem is stated and that from this linguistic problem arises a misunderstanding in how questions and answers are framed. Second, a materialist position is taken in this theory, meaning that it is believed that the mind arises from the physical brain. This point leads to the last point of the theory. The actions that produce the mind, produce an emergent property of the mind which is different from the properties which are actually creating the mind. The mind and its emergent properties then feedback and affect the properties and materials that give rise to it.
Any time that a new theory is proposed in any realm, it is often met with skepticism, and it will be the point of the rest of the essay to explain how this theory is better than the other theories of mind and also how it satisfactorily resolves the mind-body problem. When considering the other theories of mind, the author first rejects the notion of any theory that has dualist notions. Dualism fails to resolve the problem because its answer is fielded in an area which can neither be confirmed nor rejected. By placing the possibilities of an answer outside of the physical realm, where measurements and observations cannot be made, we can neither confirm nor deny the correctness of this theory. This makes the theory unsatisfactory as an explanation when its validity cannot be tested. While “eliminative materialism” takes a materialist approach to addressing the mind-body problem, it does not necessarily agree with the other materialist theories. They were insufficient in their attempts to explain the problem and also generally were met with criticism for not addressing free will. Lastly, the author will not address the phenomenological approach to the mind-body problem. This approach “brackets out” the questions at hand and instead concerns itself with the description of our experience. When the theory does not concern itself with the question at hand, the relationship of the mind and body, the author does not find as a sufficient explanation of the problem.
With the rejection of these theories, similar criticisms may be stated against “eliminative materialism,” however, the theory stands up to the criticism. Since the theory is rooted in materialism, the same criticisms of materialism should be addressed for this theory. The most common criticism of materialism is the failure to acknowledge and account for free will. The present theory addresses these through the terminology of emergentism. Since the mind emerges from the brain, and through this process of emergentism gains properties which are not of the physical properties that create the mind. It is through this creation process that the mind gains the possibility to have free will. This is now a physical explanation that is not deterministic which accounts for free will and does not use dualist notions of the physical and non-physical interacting. One other objection to the theory is that we do not know the exact methods by which the brain creates the mind. This issue is addressed by McGinn who states that we will cannot grasp how the mind and body are connected. He states that cognitive closure prevents us from ever knowing how the mind works. However, to state that we will never no something is an interesting way to address the problem. By stating that the problem exists in the physical world, we are aware that we have the tools and the knowledge to measure the necessary variables included in consciousness. While the exact way that the mind and body are connected is not yet known, it is the impression of the author that this problem will be addressed soon.
In conclusion, it is proposed that “emergent materialism” is the theory that satisfactorily resolves the mind-body problem. Where other theories are faced with various criticisms for not satisfactorily answering the question at hand nor taking into account some of the consequences of how the mind-body problem is answered, “emergent materialism” faces the criticisms and is able to account for the consequences of how it frames the answer. By placing the mind and body as two sides to the same concept, the theory is able to argue for the justification of a materialist position of how the mind arises from the brain. The debate of how free will is then dealt with is acknowledged through the use of emergentism of the mind from the brain in which new properties are created when the physical properties of the brain combine to form the mind. This theory appears to fill in the holes present in past attempts to solve the mind-body problem. While the exact properties of how the mind arises from the physical brain are not yet know, research is on the doorstep to understanding how these relate.
Are there thoughts or ideas that can then be created by the emergent properties of the mind and not be directly traced back to physical causes?
How do you understand thoughts that are not directly caused by physical means?
What are some examples of these thoughts?
Could one example be how do we miss someone?
As humans, we naturally believe ourselves to be better than other creatures and thus like to believe that we are the only animals to have some of the cognitive abilities that we have. It is these abilities that we would naturally like to apply to the emergent properties of the mind. I wonder whether this is actually true or not. It is interesting to wonder what thoughts we have that might be created by other thoughts.
I want to explore missing someone. We have thoughts about a person, different feelings, experiences, memories, opinions, ect. But it is not these that actually make us miss them. There are thoughts about these are thoughts. What is it to miss someone, a wish for someone to be with or near you? How long does it take for a person to be gone to miss them? Can you miss someone who is with you? When you miss a person, you have a wish or a desire for that person which is not fulfilled. We may assume that there could be a biological basis behind having thoughts about wanting something and feeling bad for not having that thing. However with a person, I think that there is so much more. There is reflection and thinking about that person which brings to mind the reasons why you may miss them. When thinking about these reasons, and realizing that the impetus of those memories or thoughts isn't there creates a feeling of loss. So while I concluded that the mind arises from the brain, it appears that there are emergent properties of the mind that can inturn interact with the brain. It is interesting how these good thoughts and memories when combined with a person not being there can make someone feel not as good, to make them feel that the miss someone.
I'll end this post by attaching my paper...
Bridging the Mind/Body Gap?
The mind-body problem may be one of the oldest problems in the philosophy of the mind. In its most general form, the problem arises from the description of the relationship between the mind and the body (brain). Generally philosophers have gone one of two ways, by claiming either a physical or nonphysical connection in this relationship. Theses answers to the question of how the brain and mind interact are broadly addressed by dualism (nonphysical), monism (physical) and phenomenology (focuses on experience). At stake to answering the question of the mind-body problem are consequences to how we frame and answer questions related to what is a person/what is an identity, do we have free will, and what is the self. In the hundreds of years, since Descartes formally posed this question, many theories have proposed solution to the problem. Dualism (as an umbrella term for related theories), favored by Descartes, monism (including the physical theories) and phenomenological theories have been proposed as solutions to the problem. However, none of these alone provide a satisfactory answer to the question nor resolve the problem. It is proposed here, however, that an explanation of the mind-body problem does exist. By first recognizing a linguistics problem in the way that the problem is posed and then adopting an emergent biological naturalistic approach to the problem, we find a theory, “eliminative materialism,” which is both satisfactory and that resolves the problem.When a theory is described as “satisfactory” and “resolving” one must be careful to describe the connotations and implications of what that means. Here satisfactory is taken to mean that the theory is not perfect in all respects, however, as a whole, or along the right lines the theory is correct. Resolving is thus taken to mean that a straightforward solution is provided by the theory at hand. The previous theories proposed as solutions have their respective supporters and doubters, but they all have flaws and problems that do not make them the best candidate for solving the mind-body problem. Although the theory here may have its doubters, it provides a concrete and realistic explanation of how the mind and body relate.
The main issue or contention with the mind-body problem is not definitively how the mind and body relate, but in whatever way that they do meet, how does this affect other parts of life and person. There are many different subjects that are discussed in the philosophy of the mind, including but not limited to, death, perception, personhood, emotion, free will and the self. When adopting a certain frame of the mind-body problem, certain restraints are placed upon you in how you view and perceive these related topics. It is difficult to adopt a position and be able to defend all parts of what we often hold special as humans with just that position. The variety of theories of the mind-body problem appear to have various tradeoffs based on their strengths and weaknesses in describing the relationship at interest. The problem of the mind-body problem appears to be that as humans, we want our cake and to eat it to. This anthropocentric view of human kind as being special beings means that we want everything to work as we wish it. Man wants to consider himself special, as he is the only one to be born or possess this special characteristic of consciousness, unwilling to assign it to creatures or objects, not like himself. Most people believe that they want to be responsible for the choices that they make, that they know that other people are themselves conscious and that it is not through a serious of miracles that we live our everyday lives.
Specifically related to free will, it is generally contested that monists (who view the mind and body as arising from the same substance) follow a path which leads to determinism, which states that decisions are determined by natural laws, which would indicate that people are not free (in their decision making). Dualists on the other hand, view the mind and body as separate thus allowing for the mind to act independent of the body and thus act upon it. However, if the mind is separate from the body, and the mind only interacts with one specific body, how do we know that other people are conscious creatures like ourselves? Phenomenology on the other hand, brackets the questions that are largely at stake in the mind-body problem and instead attempts to offer an objective description of experiences. So until this point it appears when choosing a theory of the mind-body problem, one has to be mindful of the tradeoffs made in choosing a certain theory. The following theory proposes satisfactorily a resolution to the mind-body problem.
Since each attempt to answer the mind-body problem encounters substantial problems, it is of contention that perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the conceptual framework of the problem. It is perhaps not a “problem” it may be that the mind and body are the same thing, not necessarily in the ways described in monism, but in that the human experience can be described in metal and physical terms. It becomes a problem when the descriptions are used interchangeably or in the field opposite of where they should describe. This view is similar to the mind-brain identity theory in that the mind and brain are viewed as two sides of the same token. The example of sense (mental) and reference (physical) is used to describe this theory.
At this point in the theory we understand that the mental and physical are two sides to the same concept. However, it is the contention of this theory that it is the physical from which the mental emerges. Here one might confuse this point as Hasker’s middle way, “emergent dualism”, however, it is actually the inverse, “emergent materialism.” One can view the conscious from the top down or the bottom up. In the first of many analogies, a fire can be viewed from above and be seen as smoke, which is analogous to the mental states, or one can view a fire from the ground and see it as a fire, the physical. Many have heard the phase, “there is no smoke without a fire,” and in this analogy, it means that there can be no mental states without the physical. While this does not directly go back the other way, the physical does depend on the mental states which are them selves physical. By not placing the mental outside of the realm of the physical, it can be stated that the mental and physical interact. Another analogy for emergentism is that of water. When hydrogen and oxygen gases combine to form liquid water, new properties emerge that would not have been predicted from the materials that it emerged from. Thus the physical properties of the brain give rise to the mental states.
In Hasker’s middle way he decides to reject materialism, stating that materialism cannot account for a unity of consciousness if consciousness is simply neurons firing synchronously. However, in this present theory, biological materialism is fully supported. It is the view of this theory that mental phenomena are caused by neurobiological processes in the brain and that the brain is able to produce intentionality. Although the process about how this occurs is not exactly known, it should not be assumed that we will never know. McGinn states that we cannot resolve the mystery of the mind-brain problem. Although he too supports a naturalistic approach to how consciousness arises, he claims that cognitive closure does not allow us to ever fully grasp the mind-body connection (more on this later). Two propositions for how consciousness arises are proposed in the present theory. In one view, there is a specific coalition of neurons which act and fire in a specific way for stimuli both in the environment and internally. In the other view, neurons in the brain fire in synchrony and assemble to arise as a cohesive units from moment to moment while incorporating feedback from the body.
It is the argument of this essay that “emergent materialism” is a theory that is sufficient and resolves the mind-body problem. To summarize the argument of the theory, one should be reminded of the three parts that compose the theory. First, “emergent materialism” states that there is a linguistic problem with how the mind-body problem is stated and that from this linguistic problem arises a misunderstanding in how questions and answers are framed. Second, a materialist position is taken in this theory, meaning that it is believed that the mind arises from the physical brain. This point leads to the last point of the theory. The actions that produce the mind, produce an emergent property of the mind which is different from the properties which are actually creating the mind. The mind and its emergent properties then feedback and affect the properties and materials that give rise to it.
Any time that a new theory is proposed in any realm, it is often met with skepticism, and it will be the point of the rest of the essay to explain how this theory is better than the other theories of mind and also how it satisfactorily resolves the mind-body problem. When considering the other theories of mind, the author first rejects the notion of any theory that has dualist notions. Dualism fails to resolve the problem because its answer is fielded in an area which can neither be confirmed nor rejected. By placing the possibilities of an answer outside of the physical realm, where measurements and observations cannot be made, we can neither confirm nor deny the correctness of this theory. This makes the theory unsatisfactory as an explanation when its validity cannot be tested. While “eliminative materialism” takes a materialist approach to addressing the mind-body problem, it does not necessarily agree with the other materialist theories. They were insufficient in their attempts to explain the problem and also generally were met with criticism for not addressing free will. Lastly, the author will not address the phenomenological approach to the mind-body problem. This approach “brackets out” the questions at hand and instead concerns itself with the description of our experience. When the theory does not concern itself with the question at hand, the relationship of the mind and body, the author does not find as a sufficient explanation of the problem.
With the rejection of these theories, similar criticisms may be stated against “eliminative materialism,” however, the theory stands up to the criticism. Since the theory is rooted in materialism, the same criticisms of materialism should be addressed for this theory. The most common criticism of materialism is the failure to acknowledge and account for free will. The present theory addresses these through the terminology of emergentism. Since the mind emerges from the brain, and through this process of emergentism gains properties which are not of the physical properties that create the mind. It is through this creation process that the mind gains the possibility to have free will. This is now a physical explanation that is not deterministic which accounts for free will and does not use dualist notions of the physical and non-physical interacting. One other objection to the theory is that we do not know the exact methods by which the brain creates the mind. This issue is addressed by McGinn who states that we will cannot grasp how the mind and body are connected. He states that cognitive closure prevents us from ever knowing how the mind works. However, to state that we will never no something is an interesting way to address the problem. By stating that the problem exists in the physical world, we are aware that we have the tools and the knowledge to measure the necessary variables included in consciousness. While the exact way that the mind and body are connected is not yet known, it is the impression of the author that this problem will be addressed soon.
In conclusion, it is proposed that “emergent materialism” is the theory that satisfactorily resolves the mind-body problem. Where other theories are faced with various criticisms for not satisfactorily answering the question at hand nor taking into account some of the consequences of how the mind-body problem is answered, “emergent materialism” faces the criticisms and is able to account for the consequences of how it frames the answer. By placing the mind and body as two sides to the same concept, the theory is able to argue for the justification of a materialist position of how the mind arises from the brain. The debate of how free will is then dealt with is acknowledged through the use of emergentism of the mind from the brain in which new properties are created when the physical properties of the brain combine to form the mind. This theory appears to fill in the holes present in past attempts to solve the mind-body problem. While the exact properties of how the mind arises from the physical brain are not yet know, research is on the doorstep to understanding how these relate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)