Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8465332 -

I think the link between the brain and thinking is pretty obvious. I mean, we can do functional MRI studies and show different parts of the brain lighting up when people are thinking about different things (or performing tasks). That's pretty remarkable.
But even before fMRI... I mean, people have known for hundreds of years that thought and consciousness at least has something to do with the brain. It's not like it took until 20th century neurosurgery before people realised HEY THAT'S WHAT THIS THING DOES.

Though everyone in this thread may already agree with me... I have a feeling I've missed the point of the discussion


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: Icelander]
    #8466287 -

I thought is was a pretty basic concept...  Right??

I mean, I was trying to imagine nonexistence.:what:

Non sense??

Perhaps...

But instead of think about that one...  Its like ack ack ack...

Lack of imagination??

And yes...  I still love the shit out of myself.  I recommend it.

For I AM THE SON OF GOD:lol:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: Diploid]
    #8466319 -

Diploid said:
There's as much evidence FOR life after death as there is AGAINST it. That is to say: absolutely none.

I reserve judgment on the matter

There is as much evidence for the existence of the Tooth Fairy as against her.

I'm curious: Do you reserve judgment on her existence or do you pretty much consider it a practical near-certainty that she doesn't exist?


Alls I'm saying is I have an easy time not believing in the tooth fairy, but I find a sticky point in the matter of continuity of consciousness after death.

I'm not discounting the possibility that this is foolishness on my part, but I can't imagine having to make any life-or-death decisions based on my belief/disbelief in the tooth fairy or the afterlife.

Edited by Tchan909 (05/31/08 03:30 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: backfromthedead]
    #8467363 -

backfromthedead said:
I thought is was a pretty basic concept...  Right??

I mean, I was trying to imagine nonexistence.:what:

Non sense??

Perhaps...

But instead of think about that one...  Its like ack ack ack...

Lack of imagination??

And yes...  I still love the shit out of myself.  I recommend it.

For I AM THE SON OF GOD:lol:


Maybe it's just me but imagining non existence seems contradictory.

As for your belief in God. :tongue::monkeydance: I think that concept is proof of non existence.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: Icelander]
    #8467446 -

I want Veritas to come back.  :sad:

It's the weekend, dammit.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8467480 -

Senor_Hongos said:
Concepts are not memories, nor do I think they are located there. Memories are comprised of sense perceptions stored in some fashion, in the brain. Concepts are immaterial, the means whereby we recognize individuals belonging to a certain class, i.e. universals. Nothing that exists as a universal cannot be stored in matter because it isn't matter, it is mind.


I've spent most of my life taking care of children, starting with my little brother, and the early development of concepts is quite evidently based upon repeated sense perceptions. Have you ever spent time around a toddler who incessantly points and asks "what that?"? They are gathering data with which they will create shorthand concepts to aid them in quickly assessing their environment.

The concept "dog" is built with hundreds of "what that?" sense impression associations. All the times Mom or Dad says "that's a dog, sweetie" are associated with particular qualities of the animal they are currently seeing. They will try out their fledgling concepts when something fits the rules they have learned thus far, pointing to a grizzly bear on TV and saying "dog!" When Mom or Dad says "no, that's a bear," they file away the commonalities and differences for later reference. Eventually they have developed a long list of rules for which animals can accurately be called "dog," and will rarely make a mistake.

These rules are stored in the memory center of the brain, and can be lost as an effect of brain damage. The same applies to intangible concepts such as "justice," "love," "equality," "freedom," etc...we learn the rules of the definition, see certain situations which someone describes as exemplifying the intangible concept (i.e. "oh, look at the baby hugging his Mommy--he really loves her!"), and can refer to our memory of this in order to apply the intangible concept to future situations.

You seem to be referring to the Platonic idea of universal concepts, which he claimed were based upon an alternate world of pure forms which we could dimly perceive through the veil between. Plato's thesis was conceived pre-neurological research, and seems to be more fancy than fact.

You still have not answered my question as to how you would differentiate between the activity of the brain and this immaterial process you call "mind."

What support can you offer for your claim that conditions besides brain activity constitute sufficient conditions for consciousness?

Edited by Veritas (05/31/08 04:18 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: Veritas]
    #8467512 -

I like to fuck with small children and show them this picture of the dog bear and ask what it is. Great fun!



--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: Veritas]
    #8470481 -

Veritas said:
I've spent most of my life taking care of children, starting with my little brother, and the early development of concepts is quite evidently based upon repeated sense perceptions. Have you ever spent time around a toddler who incessantly points and asks "what that?"? They are gathering data with which they will create shorthand concepts to aid them in quickly assessing their environment.


It is possible, I would say even likely, that the concepts are not being learned at that point, the word signifying the concept is being learned. The reason I say this is because universals as sense perceptions, particularly visual, are identified by other animals without using words. Birds and other animals can tell the difference between a triangle and a circle. This is called perceptual abstraction.

Quote:
The concept "dog" is built with hundreds of "what that?" sense impression associations. All the times Mom or Dad says "that's a dog, sweetie" are associated with particular qualities of the animal they are currently seeing. They will try out their fledgling concepts when something fits the rules they have learned thus far, pointing to a grizzly bear on TV and saying "dog!" When Mom or Dad says "no, that's a bear," they file away the commonalities and differences for later reference. Eventually they have developed a long list of rules for which animals can accurately be called "dog," and will rarely make a mistake.


As I said, it is not the concept being learned, it is the word signifying the concept.


Quote:
These rules are stored in the memory center of the brain, and can be lost as an effect of brain damage.


These "rules" as you call them are a function of the mind, which is in place before the word signifying the concept (actually percept) is learned.

Quote:
The same applies to intangible concepts such as "justice," "love," "equality," "freedom," etc...we learn the rules of the definition, see certain situations which someone describes as exemplifying the intangible concept (i.e. "oh, look at the baby hugging his Mommy--he really loves her!"), and can refer to our memory of this in order to apply the intangible concept to future situations.



Not to complicate things even further, but these are examples of concepts versus the precepts we were talking about earlier. Propositional speech, only found in humans, helps us to attach the words to conceptual abstraction, giving them signification.


Quote:
You seem to be referring to the Platonic idea of universal concepts, which he claimed were based upon an alternate world of pure forms which we could dimly perceive through the veil between. Plato's thesis was conceived pre-neurological research, and seems to be more fancy than fact.


The concept of universals had its beginning with Plato. However, down through the years it has had significant refinement. Porphyry, Boethius, Aristotle, Bonaventure, down to William of Champeaux, Bernard of Chartres, Clarembald of Arras and Abelard have all had their say.

John Locke's conflation with ideas and concepts being that which we directly apprehend in our mind and that by which we apprehend something else also predates neurological research. It is that, and no other, point at which we disagree. Sadly, neurological research has done nothing to explain it. The debate between two factions continues unabated to this day. It is my contention that neurological research is unable to explain it because it is out of empirical science's grasp. Only with philosophy and science working together may the answer be found.

And while I may not agree with his stance on evolution, I would point to an article by David Berlinski that won The Best American Science Writing in 2005 that clearly shows the thorny problem this is: Link.


Quote:
You still have not answered my question as to how you would differentiate between the activity of the brain and this immaterial process you call "mind."

What support can you offer for your claim that conditions besides brain activity constitute sufficient conditions for consciousness?


Well, Ockham's razor for one. The rule of parsimony states we do not add more reasons for a thing if a simpler, or lesser, answer will do. The existence of an immaterial "mind" is the only answer that will suffice in the question of how we recognize sensate perceptions--we being animals. Conceptual abstraction, for the very same reason, is the property of humans alone.

There are at least four distinct positions regarding this problem.

1. Psycho-physical dualists. That the mind, or soul, and the body are two separate entities. Plato and Descartes are the primary authors. It is an extreme position that doesn't need the use of neurological research in order to dispense with it.

2. Materialistic monism. That the brain and the mind are completely synonymous. Thomas Hobbes would appear to be an early author. This position is also extreme and can be easily dispensed with if we agree the brain and the mind are at least analytically distinct.

3. Moderate materialism. I think this is your view.

4. Moderate immaterialiam. This would be my position.

My argument hinges on two propositions. The first asserts that the concepts whereby we understand what different things are like consist of meanings that are universal. The second proposition is that nothing that exists physically is ever universal. The conclusion then is that our concepts which have universality cannot be embodied in matter. If the concepts were acts of the brain, they would be embodied in matter so they couldn't have the requisite universality to function as concepts that enable us to think of individual things.

Therefore, the power of conceptual thought that we use to form concepts (and use them) has to be immaterial.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: Icelander]
    #8470761 -

Hence my comparing it to one's inability to 'experience' when asleep and not dreaming.
Like dead time... 

Again, it is contradictory.  Obviously.  Because you are still alive.
But with no recollection...  I feel that it is the closest you can come to nonexistence while living.

Of course, a paradox.:banghead: 



God.  One's inability to relate to this concept as an individual and in an unorthodox way allows them no room to talk on the subject, thanks.
Your projection of my belief in the God, of your thoughts, is in error, imo.:shrug:

It is fun to know that you/I are using old words that trigger subsystems of ingrained thought in others.

We're too smart to believe in God over here.:lol:

:uptosomething:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #8472230 -

OrgoneConclusion said:
I like to fuck with small children


I like to make accurate, but partial quotes so that it's origial intended context is lost....  :tongue:


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."
>^;;^<

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #8472360 -

Orgial?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #8472373 -

Obviously you're not fluent in typo.  :smile:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
    #8472381 -

LoL, my "N" key on this keyboard doesn't always work right....
Makes it easy not to accidentally say the "N" word....!    :tongue:


>^;;^<


--------------------
I'll be your midnight French Fry....  :naughty:

"The most important things in life that are often ignored, are the things that one cannot see...."
>^;;^<

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: PhanTomCat]
    #8472417 -

Go igure :wink:  :lol:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8472460 -

:grin:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: backfromthedead]
    #8472511 -

We're too smart to believe in God over here.:lol:



Which planet would that be?:satansmoking:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
    #8472706 -

Senor_Hongos said:
It is possible, I would say even likely, that the concepts are not being learned at that point, the word signifying the concept is being learned. The reason I say this is because universals as sense perceptions, particularly visual, are identified by other animals without using words. Birds and other animals can tell the difference between a triangle and a circle. This is called perceptual abstraction.


They are learning to apply the word to a series of rules which add up to a concept. The concept is NOT known prior to establishing the rules through repeated experiences and guidance from others.


Quote:
These "rules" as you call them are a function of the mind, which is in place before the word signifying the concept (actually percept) is learned.


The word "mind" describes the function of the human brain, so it is accurate to say that "mind" exists prior to having the ability to learn concepts. To claim that the "mind" has knowledge of concepts prior to exposure to said concepts seems quite baseless. What support can you offer for this claim?

Quote:
The concept of universals had its beginning with Plato. However, down through the years it has had significant refinement. Porphyry, Boethius, Aristotle, Bonaventure, down to William of Champeaux, Bernard of Chartres, Clarembald of Arras and Abelard have all had their say.


All also prior to technology which enabled us to view the brain at work. Philosophy which attempts to describe physical functions without science has little chance of being scientifically accurate.

Quote:
Sadly, neurological research has done nothing to explain it. The debate between two factions continues unabated to this day. It is my contention that neurological research is unable to explain it because it is out of empirical science's grasp.



Are you saying that neurological methods cannot establish that concepts are stored in memory? I beg to differ. Damage to the memory centers of the brain most definitely can result in loss of the ability to conceptualize.

Quote:
Well, Ockham's razor for one. The rule of parsimony states we do not add more reasons for a thing if a simpler, or lesser, answer will do. The existence of an immaterial "mind" is the only answer that will suffice in the question of how we recognize sensate perceptions--we being animals.


Please elaborate. How is the function of our physical brain insufficient to explain how we recognize sensate perceptions? The simplest explanation seems to be that our cognitive process is based in physical reality, and not in an imaginary realm of pure forms.

Quote:
The conclusion then is that our concepts which have universality cannot be embodied in matter. If the concepts were acts of the brain, they would be embodied in matter so they couldn't have the requisite universality to function as concepts that enable us to think of individual things.

Therefore, the power of conceptual thought that we use to form concepts (and use them) has to be immaterial.


You are confusing the idea with the mechanism responsible for comprehending the idea. The fact that "universals" cannot be demonstrated as a tangible object in no way implies that a tangible object (our brain) is incapable of storing information about them. This logic fails utterly.

The human brain is quite capable of representing things to itself via words rather than concrete objects. Learning is a process of building memories, and these memories may consist of both intangible thoughts AND tangible experiences. Our physical brain is literal, yet it is capable of figurative cognition.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: Icelander]
    #8472747 -

Icelander said:
We're too smart to believe in God over here.:lol:



Which planet would that be?:satansmoking:


The one obsessed with BULLSHIT stories.:what:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain unjury vs. total brain injury [Re: Veritas]
    #8472755 -

You are so smart girl. If we all had to seriously debate you girl I think this forum would fold.:lol:


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Partial brain injury vs. total brain injury [Re: backfromthedead]
    #8472757 -

backfromthedead said:
Icelander said:
We're too smart to believe in God over here.:lol:



Which planet would that be?:satansmoking:


The one obsessed with BULLSHIT stories.:what:


That might be all of them.


--------------------
"Don't believe everything you think". -Anom.

" All that lives was born to die"-Anom.

With much wisdom comes much sorrow,
The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Holographic Universe. Life changing read. DarkMushrooom 1,908 16 07/24/03 01:30 AM
by HagbardCeline
* The Universe as a Hologram seethe303 1,803 15 05/31/03 02:08 AM
by DailyPot
* Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 4,878 58 10/22/02 01:18 AM
by shii-tan
* global brain encounter pattern 1,347 7 09/12/02 03:55 AM
by pattern
* OBEs = Brain Misfiring?
( 1 2 all )		 Sclorch 5,659 39 09/24/02 11:33 AM
by Albino_Jesus
* Do you belive you are your brain?
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )		 David_Scape 5,425 85 12/24/02 08:16 PM
by Swami
* 10% of brain usage myth
( 1 2 3 all )		 Swami 6,683 57 10/09/01 10:51 AM
by Crobih
* Human brain and species memory Xlea321 2,061 11 04/13/02 02:35 AM
by Xlea321

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
10,695 topic views. 2 members, 15 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 18 queries.