Brain mind

[Metacrock]

Take a chill pill, Meta.

"Veto Power" is seen in all kinds of complex systems, for example bird flocking. The flock goes one way for a while, and then it spontaneously switches directions as a group without any signals being called, purely as a result of birds interacting with their neighbors. The same is seen in locust migration. Changing your mind/vetoing a bad decision does NOT mean that something is going on beyond the functioning of your brain.

I don't think that is veto power. the individual bird doesn't just decide to go some other way. even so that example doesn't answer any argument I made.

"Top Down causality" i.e. psychosomatic effects. The brain is in a pretty good position to change the body. The fact that changes in the mind can cause changes in the body reflects the importance of the regulatory function of the brain.

No you don't get it. something is changing the brain. Its' not just that the brain controls the body,t he will controls the brain.

"The foregoing review makes it abundantly clear that consciousness is not a mere epiphenomenon, a derivative of physiological processes, and in itself of no functional significance. As the Nobel prize-winning physicist Eugene Wigner, reflecting on the connection between consciousness and the physical world, observed, 'if mind could not affect the physical world but was only affected by it, this would be the only known example in modern physics of such a one-way interaction'" Yeah, the mind affects the physical world. Otherwise I couldn't move my fingers to type when I want to. That does not mean that there is a mind above and beyond the brain. The brain is a very important regulatory organ, and the mind reflects the state of the brain.[/quote]


yes it sure does mean that. that's exactly what it means. You are assuming the brain is the top, how do you know? obviously the will can control the brain or would not have placebos.

Again, you haven't really responded to the study that showed conscious decisions lagging severely behind brain activity.

Obviously that is answers by the material I posted. The will controls the brain, ergo...

Changes in the brain happen before you change your mind. So you change your brain -> you change your mind -> you change your body -> a scar is healed (for example). Or, a therapist helps you change your mind, which is actually helping you change your brain, which then helps you with your problems.

that's not necessarily true. But that's another bait and switch. just because some process take place automatically and can't be vetoed doesn't mean no veto power or that veto power doesn't rest in mind above brain. That's just a function of good design. If you had to stop think about weather nor not you wanted to take every breath you couldn't do anything but sit around telling yourself to breath. Worse with heart beat.

YES, the mind acts on the body, but only to the extent that the brain does.

that is exactly the oppossite of what the data shows. you just got through NOT SHOWING many data to back that up.

If the mind could shoot fireballs or do something else that the brain cannot, you'd have something. But the mind appears as though it is a function of the state of the brain, i.e. the mind reflects what the brain is doing.

that is a ridiculous standard. the evidence points to mind, something non tangible beyond the brain that can control brain function. that's exactly the argument I have made, I did not argue that we can breath fire or walk on water. I argued this and only this. I proved this is just what we have. One would think that would prove the argument. why do you bring in this ridiculous standard that has nothing to do with the argumet? that' so atheist. "extraordinary evidence could only be God parting the starts.

Not everything has to be extraordinary evidence. the calim that we have minds is not an extraordinary claim.

[Metacrock]

Well, this is the way the scenario is looking to me:

Scientist: "I want to see if mind is more than the brain's chemical operation, but all I'm going to look at is the brain's chemical operation. Ok. I'm looking. . . looking. . . Odd. All I saw was the brain's chemical operation."

I think the idea of looking at top-down causality and veto power are good places to look at where the mind might have an effect on the brain-- though of course, even that is going to be seen in the brain. . . so if that's all you're looking at, that's still all you're going to see. . .

two thumbs up

[sgttomas]

I think the idea of looking at top-down causality and veto power are good places to look at where the mind might have an effect on the brain-- though of course, even that is going to be seen in the brain. . . so if that's all you're looking at, that's still all you're going to see. . .

Correct. There is literally zero information to be derived from molecular behaviour alone. Rather, we insert meaning (i.e. correlation and causation) which happens entirely at a subjective level. So it's proper to both observe chemicals, and to interpret mind with concepts/ideas as being "primary". The reality is that both are expressions of the same thing.

The hard work of figuring out the mechanics of transformation from chemical to idea (or vice versa) is....well, very hard. No one has a sufficient answer as far as I'm aware.

Peace,
-sgttomas

[Metacrock]

I think the idea of looking at top-down causality and veto power are good places to look at where the mind might have an effect on the brain-- though of course, even that is going to be seen in the brain. . . so if that's all you're looking at, that's still all you're going to see. . .

Correct. There is literally zero information to be derived from molecular behaviour alone. Rather, we insert meaning (i.e. correlation and causation) which happens entirely at a subjective level. So it's proper to both observe chemicals, and to interpret mind with concepts/ideas as being "primary". The reality is that both are expressions of the same thing.

The hard work of figuring out the mechanics of transformation from chemical to idea (or vice versa) is....well, very hard. No one has a sufficient answer as far as I'm aware.

Peace,
-sgttomas

I am researching a three volume set of a book science meets God that is an anthology of different kinds of neural scientists and people who study religion scientifically, and the unifying theme is the chemical basis for religion. you have all these scientists like Dennet and Pinker who are just willing to assume that any religious person is biased automatically, so you can't believe their words about how the experinces effect them. But of course they never question their own dubious based anti-religious motiving is ignoring that kind of testimony.

[QuantumTroll]

"Veto Power" is seen in all kinds of complex systems, for example bird flocking. The flock goes one way for a while, and then it spontaneously switches directions as a group without any signals being called, purely as a result of birds interacting with their neighbors. The same is seen in locust migration. Changing your mind/vetoing a bad decision does NOT mean that something is going on beyond the functioning of your brain.

I don't think that is veto power. the individual bird doesn't just decide to go some other way. even so that example doesn't answer any argument I made.

But my example does display veto power. The flock "decides" and "vetoes" its direction according to some complex dynamic that is not apparent from the behavior of individual parts.

"Top Down causality" i.e. psychosomatic effects. The brain is in a pretty good position to change the body. The fact that changes in the mind can cause changes in the body reflects the importance of the regulatory function of the brain.

No you don't get it. something is changing the brain. Its' not just that the brain controls the body,t he will controls the brain.

You don't get it, the mind is changing the brain is changing the mind is changing the brain. The brain controls itself, and your consciousness comes along and experiences that.

yes it sure does mean that. that's exactly what it means. You are assuming the brain is the top, how do you know? obviously the will can control the brain or would not have placebos.

The brain controls the will, or else we wouldn't have addictions. Anyway, I'm trying to not assume anything, but to work from the evidence. Placebos and mind-over-matter are examples of the power and versatility of the brain.

Again, you haven't really responded to the study that showed conscious decisions lagging severely behind brain activity.

Obviously that is answers by the material I posted. The will controls the brain, ergo...

The will controls the brain, ergo.. what? If the will controls the brain, we would not expect the will to register after the brain starts to work. If the will controls the brain, then we would feel like we're making a decision before or at the same time as the brain is doing its stuff. I do not think you have answered this at all.

Changes in the brain happen before you change your mind. So you change your brain -> you change your mind -> you change your body -> a scar is healed (for example). Or, a therapist helps you change your mind, which is actually helping you change your brain, which then helps you with your problems.

that's not necessarily true. But that's another bait and switch. just because some process take place automatically and can't be vetoed doesn't mean no veto power or that veto power doesn't rest in mind above brain. That's just a function of good design. If you had to stop think about weather nor not you wanted to take every breath you couldn't do anything but sit around telling yourself to breath. Worse with heart beat.

You're doing the bait-and-switch. I did not mention anything about autonomic functions. Red herring.

YES, the mind acts on the body, but only to the extent that the brain does.

that is exactly the oppossite of what the data shows. you just got through NOT SHOWING many data to back that up

the evidence points to mind, something non tangible beyond the brain that can control brain function.

You have not shown a single piece of evidence for a mind that can do stuff that the brain cannot. I brought up "shooting fireballs" as a tongue-in-cheek example, but whatever. Can you cite a single thing and explain why the brain can not be responsible for it? And please don't just reiterate "veto power" and "top-down causality", be specific and concrete.

the calim that we have minds is not an extraordinary claim.

The claim that we have minds beyond our brains is quite extraordinary, in my opinion

[sgttomas]

I am researching a three volume set of a book science meets God that is an anthology of different kinds of neural scientists and people who study religion scientifically, and the unifying theme is the chemical basis for religion. you have all these scientists like Dennet and Pinker who are just willing to assume that any religious person is biased automatically, so you can't believe their words about how the experinces effect them. But of course they never question their own dubious based anti-religious motiving is ignoring that kind of testimony.

I bought this, but haven't read it yet.

lemme know what your research uncovers.
-sgtt.

[Metacrock]

I am researching a three volume set of a book science meets God that is an anthology of different kinds of neural scientists and people who study religion scientifically, and the unifying theme is the chemical basis for religion. you have all these scientists like Dennet and Pinker who are just willing to assume that any religious person is biased automatically, so you can't believe their words about how the experinces effect them. But of course they never question their own dubious based anti-religious motiving is ignoring that kind of testimony.

I bought this, but haven't read it yet.

lemme know what your research uncovers.
-sgtt.

that's a great book. I read hat earlier in the summer. I'm writting a book. this topic is in it.

I'll let you know when it's out.

[sgttomas]

that's a great book. I read hat earlier in the summer. I'm writting a book. this topic is in it.

I'll let you know when it's out.

Oh great! Please do.

...I'm still putting off reading that book. lol. *shrugs*

Peace,
-sgttomas

[QuantumTroll]

I just ran across this talk, although it's been on the internet for a while. It's kinda relevant to this thread, and I found it very interesting. Science is used to illuminate the causes of happiness, and the results are pretty surprising (to me, at least ). Have a look!

Edit 1: This one is also very good. I look forward to discussing these topics
Edit 2: Watch Dan Dennett's talk on consciousness, too!

[Metacrock]

can't you just tell me what it says?

I have lots of studies that show that the major factor in happiness is religious experince.