Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The central paradigm of contemporary psychology and neuroscience is that the mind = the brain.

This is taken for granted, but why believe it?  The main reason that is given is that changes in the brain seem to correlate with changes in the mind,e.g. put someone in an fMRI scanner and ask them to think about certain things, and parts of the brain 'light up' on the fMRI image.  Damage to the brain can cause damage to the mind, e.g. multiple strokes can lead to vascular dementia involving memory loss and personality changes.  All this shows an intimate correlation between the brain and the mind, so the mind must be nothing over and above the brain.

The fallacy of this argument is that correlation entails identity:  If two things occur together then they must be identical.  This is wrong.  If two things occur together, then they are linked, but not necessarily identical.  For example, take a radio.  Electrical activity in the circuit board correlates with the sound produced, and if you make changes to the circuit board you also change the sound, but we dont say that the sound is = the electrical activity or the circuit board.  Nor is the sound completely explained by the electrical activity, as this would exclude the radio presenter from the explanation when he is the actual cause of the sound.

Of course this doesnt prove that the mind is other than the brain, only that the main reason for thinking they are identical is flawed.  Here are some other bad reasons for thinking they are identical:

http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/GIVING%20DUALISM.pdf

 

The paper is written by an atheist philosopher.

Edited by .InshAllah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this applies to many other things also which people take as empirical evidence , how they say "animal x contains genes xyz.. , human contains genes xyz...., therefore this must have come from that because this is less complex then that"

its a very surface-view material conclusion but is not correct at all , that's the problem with all sciences today 

this very naive and obnoxious and ignorant conclusion as if everything folds into one ball and all are parts of that ball once it is extruded 

if you like this kind of psychological philosophy read the works of William James, he is one of my favourite philosophers/psychologists 

he describes this what you described, beautifully in his work "Pluralistic Universe"

"...the first thing to notice is this, that the only material we have at our disposal for making a picture of the whole world is supplied by the various portions of that world of which we have already had experience. We can invent no new forms of conception, applicable to the whole exclusively, and not suggested originally by the parts. All philosophers, accordingly, have conceived of the whole world after the analogy of some particular feature of it which has particularly captivated their attention. Thus, the theists take their cue from manufacture, the pantheists from growth. For one man, the world is like a thought or a grammatical sentence in which a thought is expressed. For such a philosopher, the whole must logically be prior to the parts; for letters would never have been invented without syllables to spell, or syllables without words to utter.

Another man, struck by the disconnectedness and mutual accidentality of so many of the world's details, takes the universe as a whole to have been such a disconnectedness originally, and supposes order to have been superinduced upon it in the second instance, possibly by attrition and the gradual wearing away by internal friction of portions that originally interfered.

Another will conceive the order as only a statistical appearance, and the universe will be for him like a vast grab-bag with black and white balls in it, of which we guess the quantities only probably, by the frequency with which we experience their egress.

For another, again, there is no really inherent order, but it is we who project order into the world by selecting objects and tracing relations so as to gratify our intellectual interests. We carve out order by leaving the disorderly parts out; and the world is conceived thus after the analogy of a forest or a block of marble from which parks or statues may be produced by eliminating irrelevant trees or chips of stone.

Some thinkers follow suggestions from human life, and treat the universe as if it were essentially a place in which ideals are realized. Others are more struck by its lower features, and for them, brute necessities express its character better.

All follow one analogy or another; and all the analogies are with some one or other of the universe's subdivisions. Every one is nevertheless prone to claim that his conclusions are the only logical ones, that they are necessities of universal reason, they being all the while, at bottom, accidents more or less of personal vision which had far better be avowed as such; for one man's vision may be much more valuable than another's, and our visions are usually not only our most interesting but our most respectable contributions to the world in which we play our part. What was reason given to men for, said some eighteenth century writer, except to enable them to find reasons for what they want to think and do?—and I think the history of philosophy largely bears him out, 'The aim of knowledge,' says Hegel,[2] 'is to divest the objective world of its strangeness, and to make us more at home in it.' Different men find their minds more at home in very different fragments of the world."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×