Is the mind material or non-material?

[DBT]

Furthermore:

''Conscious awareness underlies important aspects of cognitive behavior. Understanding the neurobiological basis of conscious awareness has proved to be one of the most elusive problems for neuroscientists. Progress in recent years, however, allows for the development of theories of conscious awareness through integration of evidence from physiological, anatomical, and behavioral studies.

This review focuses on conscious awareness: the state in which external and internal stimuli are perceived and can be intentionally acted on. Much investigative effort has been directed at testing theoretical constructs dealing with general as well as specific characteristics of conscious awareness. We address 3 general questions: Where in the brain does consciousness occur? When does it occur in relation to external and/or internal stimuli? How are the underlying neural mechanisms involved in the emergence of consciousness? Experimentally obtained answers to these questions, although at times not definitive, narrow the list of possible hypotheses, provide new insights into conscious mechanisms, and guide future research.


Considering the dispersed nature of various sensory centers in the brain and the resultant complexity of consciousness, it is likely that the interaction between different cerebral areas gives rise to consciousness. In their classic studies, Plum and Posner1 analyzed clinical records of comatose patients across a period of several decades. Coma was found to result from diffuse cerebral dysfunction, extensive damage to both cerebral hemispheres, diffuse demyelination of the hemispheral subcortex, destruction of the thalamus, or lesions of the upper brainstem. Coma may be induced by relatively focal subcortical damage to the diencephalon or midbrain. In contrast, unilateral lesions of the cerebral hemispheres, unless augmented by secondary lesions, are incapable of permanently affecting all consciousness but may cause transient loss of awareness. Focal cortical lesions may produce deficits in circumscribed aspects of conscious perception. In the right parietal cortex, for example, such lesions may impair perception of stimuli from the left hemispace. Neuronal Mechanisms of Conscious Awareness - Pavel Ortinski, BA; Kimford J. Meador, MD Arch Neurol. 2004;61:1017-1020.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Accumulation of unwanted chemicals, which needs time to be cleared up.

Unwanted? Who and what does not want them, poor little unwanted chemicals? Did you ever asked your brain? Did he reply? Did you asked your mind? Did you asked yourself, looking in the mirror, "Hey, I sure don't want you darn chemicals! Go away!"?

When we are tired, we are not aware of "chemicals", we are aware of... tiredness. We don't try to wash out those mean chemical, our brain does. Us, we go to sleep.
Yeah, hard job!

The point is that it remains to be shown that the two levels are somehow identical.
I guess with a wee bit of chemical magic everythink should be possible!
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is what we get from philosophy, endless argument/discussion of the meaning of every word and every phrase.

Why are you here at all I wonder...

This is a philosophy forum, not a science one.

Beyond this, philosophy has no place <in the scientific explanation of facts> in an explanation of scientific facts

Philosophers don't do scientific explanation. They do philosophical explanations. You don't like them, don't read them. Remember, this is a philosophy forum.
And nobody is ever going to be interested in your opinion on what philosophers should want to explain.
It's kinda trying to play football with tennis players. A sort of category error.
EB

 

[4321lynx]

Why are you here at all I wonder...

This is a philosophy forum, not a science one.

Beyond this, philosophy has no place <in the scientific explanation of facts> in an explanation of scientific facts

Philosophers don't do scientific explanation. They do philosophical explanations. You don't like them, don't read them. Remember, this is a philosophy forum.
And nobody is ever going to be interested in your opinion on what philosophers should want to explain.
It's kinda trying to play football with tennis players. A sort of category error.
EB

Yes, philosophers discussing problems the proper study of which necessitate scientific methods is a sort of category error as I have been trying to point out.
And nobody is going to be interested in your opinion of what forums and threads I should take part in, and least of all I.

 

[DBT]

Shouldn't philosophical explanations take scientific principles and scientific information into account?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Shouldn't philosophical explanations take scientific principles and scientific information into account?

They should? Excuse me?!

They do or they don't. Each explanation should be assessed on its own merit.

Obviously some explanations will be idiotic and should be criticised but only inasmuch as they are wrong and criticism can only consist in showing that they are wrong, not on some idiotic general principle that happens to have your favours.

Personally, I feel comfortable with scientific explanations and methods but they have their limitations. In particular, metaphysical questions usually don't have scientific answers.

As to the philosophical or even metaphysical study of science by philosophers, the least they should do it to understand the science they are studying. If they don't you will have a field day showing that they don't. Yet, their methodology is for them to decide, until proven otherwise. If it's bad, they won't have good results unless protected by the gods and good luck with that. So, where is the problem exactly?
EB

 

[Juma]

In particular, metaphysical questions usually don't have scientific answers.

And thus doesnt deserve to be asked.

 

[Togo]

In particular, metaphysical questions usually don't have scientific answers.

And thus doesnt deserve to be asked.

Whether or not such questions deserve to be asked is a metaphysical position that has no scientific answer.

Yet you rely on it?

 

[Juma]

In particular, metaphysical questions usually don't have scientific answers.

And thus doesnt deserve to be asked.

Whether or not such questions deserve to be asked is a metaphysical position that has no scientific answer.

A question which answer has no connection to reality is not a valid question at all. To say that is not to dwelve into the metaphysical.

 

[Juma]

In particular, metaphysical questions usually don't have scientific answers.

And thus doesnt deserve to be asked.

Whether or not such questions deserve to be asked is a metaphysical position.

No, it is not. It is a moral/ethical one. You must keep the discussions apart: in the discussion about reality you must use scientific questions. In discussion about gobblywok you may ask, and answer in what way you please.

 

[DBT]

Shouldn't philosophical explanations take scientific principles and scientific information into account?

They should? Excuse me?!

They do or they don't. Each explanation should be assessed on its own merit.

Well, yes, assessed on its own merit....but assessed on its own merit on what basis? How do you determine what has merit and what doesn't have merit?

Obviously some explanations will be idiotic and should be criticised but only inasmuch as they are wrong and criticism can only consist in showing that they are wrong, not on some idiotic general principle that happens to have your favours.

Personally, I feel comfortable with scientific explanations and methods but they have their limitations. In particular, metaphysical questions usually don't have scientific answers.

As to the philosophical or even metaphysical study of science by philosophers, the least they should do it to understand the science they are studying. If they don't you will have a field day showing that they don't. Yet, their methodology is for them to decide, until proven otherwise. If it's bad, they won't have good results unless protected by the gods and good luck with that. So, where is the problem exactly?
EB

The problem being is related to the question I asked; If philosophers need not account for scientific information - as a ''philosophical' forum - when offering philosophical explanations in relation to physical processes, brain/mind, etc, how are you supposed to determine their merit?

 

[aupmanyav]

I guess with a wee bit of chemical magic everythink should be possible!

The magic also is there through hormones. I do not know enough neurobiology to say exacftly what happens in an emergency. But when that happens, even if the train was tired, it assumes full awareness, fast response, etc. It gets going, it gets going real fast.

 

[Togo]

Obviously some explanations will be idiotic and should be criticised but only inasmuch as they are wrong and criticism can only consist in showing that they are wrong, not on some idiotic general principle that happens to have your favours.

Personally, I feel comfortable with scientific explanations and methods but they have their limitations. In particular, metaphysical questions usually don't have scientific answers.

As to the philosophical or even metaphysical study of science by philosophers, the least they should do it to understand the science they are studying. If they don't you will have a field day showing that they don't. Yet, their methodology is for them to decide, until proven otherwise. If it's bad, they won't have good results unless protected by the gods and good luck with that. So, where is the problem exactly?
EB

The problem being is related to the question I asked; If philosophers need not account for scientific information - as a ''philosophical' forum - when offering philosophical explanations in relation to physical processes, brain/mind, etc, how are you supposed to determine their merit?

On philosophical grounds? That typically revolves around whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises, and doesn't include undeclared assumptions, what then follows logically from the reasoning presented. Philosophers often do use scientific observations in their explanations, it's the exclusion of scientific conclusions that is generally the point of contention here. Scientific conclusions tend to revolve around the most practical means of modelling reality, but are far less concerned with consistency of theory or the distinction between what can be inferred and what can be demonstrated. As such they're not generally rigorous enough for most of the purposes philosophers would want to use them for.

 

[Speakpigeon]

In particular, metaphysical questions usually don't have scientific answers.

And thus doesnt deserve to be asked.

What science does most of the time is make some metaphysical assumptions without saying which or even that it does and proceeds from there.

That's how science gets to not provide scientific answers to metaphysical questions. Should we be impressed or what?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The problem being is related to the question I asked; If philosophers need not account for scientific information - as a ''philosophical' forum - when offering philosophical explanations in relation to physical processes, brain/mind, etc, how are you supposed to determine their merit?

If you don't know how to do it then don't do it.

Also, you would have to provide examples of philosophers explicitly addressing physical processes and what might be wrong in what they say in each specific case.

And Togo's reply is exactly to the point.

PS. Anybody knows where this "philosophers need not account for scientific information" comes from? I don't.
EB

 

[DBT]

The problem being is related to the question I asked; If philosophers need not account for scientific information - as a ''philosophical' forum - when offering philosophical explanations in relation to physical processes, brain/mind, etc, how are you supposed to determine their merit?

If you don't know how to do it then don't do it.

I'm not talking about me. I asked my question in relation to your remarks.

Also, you would have to provide examples of philosophers explicitly addressing physical processes and what might be wrong in what they say in each specific case.

Given the question I asked in relation to your remarks, I don't have to provide anything of the sort.

PS. Anybody knows where this "philosophers need not account for scientific information" comes from? I don't.
EB

Well, you should know. You are the one who made the remarks:

Philosophers don't do scientific explanation. They do philosophical explanations. You don't like them, don't read them. Remember, this is a philosophy forum.
And nobody is ever going to be interested in your opinion on what philosophers should want to explain.
It's kinda trying to play football with tennis players. A sort of category error.

 

[aupmanyav]

Brain may flush out toxins during sleep

NIH-funded study suggests sleep clears brain of damaging molecules associated with neurodegeneration

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2013/ninds-17.htm

 

[Speakpigeon]

If philosophers need not account for scientific information

PS. Anybody knows where this "philosophers need not account for scientific information" comes from? I don't.
EB

Well, you should know. You are the one who made the remarks:

Philosophers don't do scientific explanation

So we have:
Speakpigeon: "Philosophers don't do scientific explanation"
DBT's interpretation: "philosophers need not account for scientific information"
I was the one who made the remark?
EB

 

[4321lynx]

The problem being is related to the question I asked; If philosophers need not account for scientific information - as a ''philosophical' forum - when offering philosophical explanations in relation to physical processes, brain/mind, etc, how are you supposed to determine their merit?

If you don't know how to do it then don't do it.

I'm not talking about me. I asked my question in relation to your remarks.

Also, you would have to provide examples of philosophers explicitly addressing physical processes and what might be wrong in what they say in each specific case.

Given the question I asked in relation to your remarks, I don't have to provide anything of the sort.

PS. Anybody knows where this "philosophers need not account for scientific information" comes from? I don't.
EB

Well, you should know. You are the one who made the remarks:

Philosophers don't do scientific explanation. They do philosophical explanations. You don't like them, don't read them. Remember, this is a philosophy forum.
And nobody is ever going to be interested in your opinion on what philosophers should want to explain.
It's kinda trying to play football with tennis players. A sort of category error.

apumanyav said

Brain may flush out toxins during sleep

NIH-funded study suggests sleep clears brain of damaging molecules associated with neurodegeneration

http://www.nih.gov/news/health/oct2013/ninds-17.htm

Yes. In the present state of neuroscience it is almost as sad to see philosophers philosophizing about the functions of the brain as it would be to see them philosophizing about the functions of the kidneys, liver, large bowel, or the heart and circulation.

Originally Posted by Speakpigeon
Philosophers don't do scientific explanation. They do philosophical explanations. You don't like them, don't read them. Remember, this is a philosophy forum.

So should we just leave them to play their games? They are harmless, unless people believe them.

 

[Togo]

Can you give an example of such a philosopher?

(Incidentally, getting a really weird technical error trying to use the quote function on your post - ended getting a different post being quoted instead. Anyone getting that?)