Does cognitive neuroscience make dualism redundant?

That is a very interesting observation and is one of the reasons I just said "brain" initially.



Lets back up once again, we all agree visual information, in the form of photons, stimulate specialized neurons (photoreceptors) in the retina?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think dualism is pretty much discredited. In my view, dualism, at it was originally proposed by Descartes, raises more questions than it answers. Even if you go back and read the original works of Descartes, they are filled with numerous objections and puzzled questions about his ideas. Descartes was a genius and also a great philosopher, but I think dualism doesn't really explain anything.

In my view the main problem with dualism is that is substitutes a new mystery (i.e. an immortal soul) in favour of an old one (the nature of conciousness). Descartes never really clearly explains why we should have an immortal soul, nor does he provide an adequate proof that one exists (though he claims he will do so in the introduction to his Meditations).

I don't think all of the philosophical problems of conciousness are solved by eliminative materialism or reductionism, but I think it is clear conciousness depends on the brain and its continued functioning. Without the brain (and the body) I think the human person ceases to exist as an entity in a meaningful sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I cannot make a broad statement--the collection of sensory data must run a gauntlet of natural cyclical filtering within different sections of the "older brain stem appendages" (thalamus/pons region), to the "later developed appendages" (cortex regions), then refiltered back, in a cyclical manner, through the same appendages, to be considered as a "conscious apparition effect".

I will continue my studies of possible "exterior system" affectations by cosmic/gamma ray bombardment sources entering the system.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, please continue.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Basic electrical data is brought to the thalamus...

 

Very well said.
At the very least, to even engage in this discussion, this is precisely where it should have started.

To wit: would all parties, at least admit that what Parmenedies says here should be granted as given?


However:

Not so fast.
To be clear, it is not the case that every instantiation of Dualism insists on naming the 'mystery' component as "soul".
(Of course, you're correct with respect to Descartes' instantiation, but again, that's just the one that most are familiar with, and not necessarily indicative of the Dualist position per se.)

 

NO.

Because what he suggests is effectual nihilism.

 

But the whole point of the discussion, coming out the OP is that there is nothing else involved. There is only what science has shown to be what is going on materially in the eyes, brain, in the passive model that Michael has put forward. The whole point is that he has somehow ruled out dualisms and souls via a description of what happens to certain reified processes.

That said, however, no. I think it is much more complicated than that, involving chicken egg type issues. However I would prefer to stay on the problems of Michael's assertions.

And, also, many non-dualists and even neuroscientists, refer to consciousness as an epi-phenomenon. How this is not a dualism, I do not know.

We have a phenomenon that cannot be a cause. I think that is a qualitative distinction.

 

Howso?

 

Right, but I think it's more than fair to say that, well, that's just silly. It's patently obvious that an assertion of that type is incorrect. If it were correct, then all would be understood, and there would be no debate whatsoever.

I never said anything about it being simple.
All I was suggesting, was that could we all not at least agree that the brain is a necessary (note: I didn't say sufficient) condition of 'mind'?

I'm one of them.
As to why it's not a kind of dualism.. well.. that would lead us too far astray I think.

Perhaps I'm not fully grasping Michael's position...

We now return to our regularly scheduled program ...

 

It rather depends on what you consider "dualism" to be.

I see there being 2 kinds of dualism in this regard: the first postulates a necessary but "immaterial" thing that is distinct from the underlying material mechanics of the brain; the second is, imo, merely two ways of looking at the same thing - one on a micro level and one on a macro level.

If we have a perfect understanding of the mechanics of the brain at a micro-level, the first of these dualisms claims there still to be something additional that gives rise to consciousness.
The second does not (in my view)... and the dualistic nature shrinks with the increasing knowledge of the micro and specifically how it relates to the macro. There exists a dualistic nature at present as we do not yet know enough to bridge that gap in our understanding between what is seen at the micro and macro levels. So we treat them differently in many regards, knowing that we can potentially learn from both approaches.

To me the latter is an acceptable position and is expected wherever there is complexity coupled with a lack of knowledge: we can see the forest and look at the forest in its entirety... and we can also look at the individual trees, how they work and operate. But until we can link and understand what we see of the tree to what we see of the forest we will have a dualism.

But the former, to me, is an untenable position as it is not one I can rationally hold, due to the lack of evidence of this "immaterial" additional aspect. I do not say it is false, only that I can not hold it as a belief due to a lack of evidence.

 

If you phrase it like this, allright.

 

He said: "Without the brain (and the body) I think the human person ceases to exist as an entity in a meaningful sense."

In other words, this is saying: We are what our brains (and bodies) are/produce.

Why this is nihilistic?
I am sure some people are so content with "life as it is usually perceived and experienced" that they are not bothered by the notion that physical death basically means the end to a person.
Other people, coming from radically different value systems, are dissatisfied with such an outlook, and deem it demoralizing.

This is not necessarily a theistic oulook at all. Many people wish to be immortal, to have unlimited fame and influence, to somehow exist beyond their bodies. For them, to settle for "I am this body, I am this mind, I am these emotions; when these cease, I will cease" is tantamount to suicide.

Much of the modern entertainment and cosmetic industries are based on and sharpen the dissatisfaction with the notion "Without the brain (and the body) I think the human person ceases to exist as an entity in a meaningful sense. We are what our brains (and bodies) are/produce."
More nobly, the humanist ideal is also an expression of such a dissatisfaction.

People generally do want more than to just settle for being these brains/bodies, whether they openly acknowledge this desire or not.

 

Oh, but amor fati.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

(I think you just said that some of M's or at least the OP/titles assertions are silly. I will take that as support)

I actually raised the necessary, sufficient distinction in my last post to Michael since he started asking me if I would ever go to an eye surgeon if my sight started failing. For the purposes of this thread I am arguing that it is insufficient and not slightly. I would like to leave the issue of it being necessary aside. I think there is something misleading, given what I believe, in saying either yes or no to this assertion. I was hoping I could get an analogy out of the particle wave issue or superposition. HM. No. I just mulled for a minute. I am not up to it. I would also prefer not to go off on the sideline of my beliefs. I prefer to be the gadfly for now - just checked the meaning of that word and see it could run two ways here. I mean i want to be the gadfly and the position taken in the OP and Michael's version are the horse.

Yes.

 

Could someone define the monism.

And can this monism be falsified?

 

Until neuroscience can explain the precise origin of anything it will always be faced with the question of dualism.

The reason remains, a scientific answer to a question cannot be, 'something started it all, and then this is what happens from there..'

:shrug:


Something is missing and that something suggests a second possible aspect, hense duality.

 

After skimming this thread, I think Michael's arguments went mostly unchallenged. With modern advancements in fMRI machines, psychosurgery, and the overal study of the human brain...clever philosophical ideas made hundreds of years ago don't hold much water anymore. I think the biggest problem is that people tend to study one side or the other, leaving both sides mostly uninformed on how the other truly works. That became somewhat clear in this thread, when one person would give a deep scientific argument, it would be dismissed, and met with a deep philosophical argument...repeat for 5 pages.

In the end though, I feel the best source of information for how our "mind" works is neuroscience..especially cognitive neuroscience. Maybe a few hundred years ago it was philosophy...and in certain situations philosophy is still useful, but to truly understand thought, there's no better method than looking at the actual organ responsible for it.

 

Your point might be stronger if you actually responded to the objections to Michael's assertions. Note the title of the thread also.

 

How can you write this? I'm sure there was at least ONE person who existed in this HUGE world of ours who thought in such a way!

 

The original OP seemed not as a much a direct assault on philosophical practices, as an attempt to tie down a statement concluding the brain was the center of consciousness. This was not completed.
I managed to adjust Michael's original argument (with Michaels' agreement) to not only include areas outside of the cortex region, but that those regions were initial in the process.

More information on anomalous sources of cascading electrical signals to the Hippocampus/Pons regions (during periods of physical sleep), did not get fully addressed by me--perhaps in the future.

There was no argument from me that Neuroscience is the essential discipline for reaching any verifiable conclusion on this subject. Only that these conclusions have not been met, conclusively, to make a confident enough statement of the matter.