You Are Not Your Brain

[Brant Gaede]

I am incapable of spin.

Are you Mongoloid? Obviously you aren't, so tell us how you make moral choices in the face of your claimed incapacity..

--Brant

Edited November 30, 2014 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

You continually ask for mental charity, but I can't afford it. Moral charity too, for lack of ability to choose. Yet somehow you are on top of brain mountain in spite of this ersatz Mongolism. There is a contradiction runnig around loose here you refuse to acknowledge or deal with but you keep sticking in our faces. Let's grant you are incapable of dealing with higher, non-mathematical abstractions because you keep stumbling over concretes--then, quo vadis?

--Brant

I am not asking for favors. I am telling you that I am incapable of spinning a fact. If you don't believe me, then don't.r

I do not ask for favors. For the most I part I do not particularly care what other people think. There is a good reason for that. I do not know what other people think. I know what they write when I see their writing. I know what they say when I hear them speak. I can see facial expression and "body language" I do not have mental telepathy so I can only perceives things in the external public world

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I am incapable of spin.

Are you Mongoloid? Obviously you aren't, so tell us how you make moral choices in the face of your claimed incapacity..

--Brant

(Bob quoted what I edited out not knowing he was quoting me.)

[anthony]

It's funny how much consciousness is being resorted to by Bob to dismiss and deny the consciousness.

Keep at it, B!

[BaalChatzaf]

It's funny how much consciousness is being resorted to by Bob to dismiss and deny the consciousness.

Keep at it, B!

I do not deny my consciousness. It is yours that I am not sure of.

[anthony]

It's funny how much consciousness is being resorted to by Bob to dismiss and deny the consciousness.

Keep at it, B!

I do not deny my consciousness. It is yours that I am not sure of.

That's a great start; mine's quite intact, btw.

Now ask Brant and Greg and everybody you know, and -voila- soon you may induce that all swans are white (every human has a mind).

[BaalChatzaf]

That's a great start; mine's quite intact, btw.

Now ask Brant and Greg and everybody you know, and -voila- soon you may induce that all swans are white (every human has a mind).

There is no way I can reach that conclusion unless I can at least match the physical works in people's heads with my own. I own a set of MRI images of my superanuated brain. I do not have access to images made of other people. There is no way I can induce (induct?) without factual data. On the basis of structural similarity I would -hypothesize- that the other person may have something like a conscious intellect. However I would not -know- it. I can only know what I can get at first hand. The rest is supposition, inference and guesswork.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

You can have working conclusions off inferences and suppositions so you have a framework to seek supporting data. Just living is a series of calculated risks. Even higher levels of knowing can sometimes leave you up a dead-end street. It's about the tentativeness of knowledge. Yes, even Einstein's theories are still tentative that way. Confirmation by experiment begs the question if another experiment x-Einstein might also confirm observation with observation itself considered to be ultimately tentative. In the meantime the bombs work and will continue to work.

--Brant

[moralist]

Well, maybe if we change the subject . . .

--Brant

faint hope

There's always hope... there just isn't a chance.

The bus has skidded off the road and is tumbling down the side of the mountain.

Greg

[moralist]

That's a great start; mine's quite intact, btw.

Now ask Brant and Greg and everybody you know, and -voila- soon you may induce that all swans are white (every human has a mind).

There is no way I can reach that conclusion unless I can at least match the physical works in people's heads with my own. I own a set of MRI images of my superanuated brain. I do not have access to images made of other people. There is no way I can induce (induct?) without factual data. On the basis of structural similarity I would -hypothesize- that the other person may have something like a conscious intellect. However I would not -know- it. I can only know what I can get at first hand. The rest is supposition, inference and guesswork.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How can you even view thought, when according to your own claim of being nothing more than your brain, it would be impossible to have an objective point of observation.

You can't lift a bucket while you're standing in it!

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

That's a great start; mine's quite intact, btw.

Now ask Brant and Greg and everybody you know, and -voila- soon you may induce that all swans are white (every human has a mind).

There is no way I can reach that conclusion unless I can at least match the physical works in people's heads with my own. I own a set of MRI images of my superanuated brain. I do not have access to images made of other people. There is no way I can induce (induct?) without factual data. On the basis of structural similarity I would -hypothesize- that the other person may have something like a conscious intellect. However I would not -know- it. I can only know what I can get at first hand. The rest is supposition, inference and guesswork.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How can you even view thought, when according to your own claim of being nothing more than your brain, it would be impossible to have an objective point of observation.

You can't lift a bucket while you're standing in it!

Gregra

I have done think, thank, thunk while being hooked to a functional MRI scan. I can see parts of my brain "light up" when I think in various ways. I have no doubt I am seeing the moving living image of the chemical electric processes of which my thoughts consist. I am convinced that I am a "wet machine" I have seen the gears and wheels turn (in a manner of speaking). That is how I identify so-called mental events with real honest to goodness physical events and processes. Everything about me is the effect of material physical causes. I am made of physical stuff that does physical things. What are you made of?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

That's a great start; mine's quite intact, btw.

Now ask Brant and Greg and everybody you know, and -voila- soon you may induce that all swans are white (every human has a mind).

There is no way I can reach that conclusion unless I can at least match the physical works in people's heads with my own. I own a set of MRI images of my superanuated brain. I do not have access to images made of other people. There is no way I can induce (induct?) without factual data. On the basis of structural similarity I would -hypothesize- that the other person may have something like a conscious intellect. However I would not -know- it. I can only know what I can get at first hand. The rest is supposition, inference and guesswork.

Ba'al Chatzaf

How can you even view thought, when according to your own claim of being nothing more than your brain, it would be impossible to have an objective point of observation.

You can't lift a bucket while you're standing in it!

I have done think, thank, thunk while being hooked to a functional MRI scan. I can see parts of my brain "light up" when I think in various ways. I have no doubt I am seeing the moving living image of the chemical electric processes of which my thoughts consist. I am convinced that I am a "wet machine" I have seen the gears and wheels turn (in a manner of speaking). That is how I identify so-called mental events with real honest to goodness physical events and processes. Everything about me is the effect of material physical causes. I am made of physical stuff that does physical things. What are you made of?

Ba'al Chatzaf

You can "wet machine" all you want, but unless you had a few your consciousness isn't "wet." Are you aware you keep arguing from the obvious to oblivion?

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

You can "wet machine" all you want, but unless you had a few your consciousness isn't "wet." Are you aware you keep arguing from the obvious to oblivion?

--Brant

I am stating facts. What are you stating. The world is physical from Out There to In Here.

[Brant Gaede]

You can "wet machine" all you want, but unless you had a few your consciousness isn't "wet." Are you aware you keep arguing from the obvious to oblivion?

--Brant

I am stating facts. What are you stating. The world is physical from Out There to In Here.

I did not state consciousness was not "physical." My claim is it isn't "wet." Are you aware you are not arguing at all? I should have caught that sooner.

--Brant

facts are not an argument but can derail one

[moralist]

I have done think, thank, thunk while being hooked to a functional MRI scan. I can see parts of my brain "light up" when I think in various ways. I have no doubt I am seeing the moving living image of the chemical electric processes of which my thoughts consist.

But you cannot physically see what the thoughts are.

It takes a different eye to see that.

Greg

[anthony]

i

The only way I -see- "in there" is with an optical-electronic scanning device. Seeing is what the eyes do

Now you are being disingenuous. You cannot win an argumelnt by this pretend-to-be stupid.

I am "literal minded" and I am probably smarter than you. I was pointing out to you that your location of "seeing in" was incorrect.

There's "smart" and there is smart - I'd bet Bob could solve a 'cruel' Sudoku puzzle much faster than me. For all that (and leaving Aspies aside, please Bob) it has long seemed to me that high IQ - as it is presently measured - often has a downside in people I've known.

The 'problem solvers' are great in selective tasks but nigh-useless at seeing the obvious and coming to partial conclusions. A part cause might be that from early on a young person plays to their mental strength, which pays rewards, ignoring their other capabilities - but that's nowhere near enough explanation.

[Brant Gaede]

The only way I -see- "in there" is with an optical-electronic scanning device. Seeing is what the eyes do

Now you are being disingenuous. You cannot win an argumelnt by this pretend-to-be stupid.

I am "literal minded" and I am probably smarter than you. I was pointing out to you that your location of "seeing in" was incorrect.

There's "smart" and there is smart - I'd bet Bob could solve a 'cruel' Sudoku puzzle much faster than me. For all that (and leaving Aspies aside, please Bob) it has long seemed to me that high IQ - as it is presently measured - often has a downside in people I've known.

The 'problem solvers' are great in selective tasks but nigh-useless at seeing the obvious and coming to conclusions. A part cause might be that from early on a young person plays to their mental strength, which pays rewards, ignoring their other capabilities - but that's nowhere near enough explanation.

I guess my own father was an Aspie like Bob is even though he never much developed his math ability but went with philosophy and other non-math/science things. Stupendous IQ. He knew he was different. Because he and William Shockley had their daughters in the same Manhattan nursery school in the late 1930s, they formed an acquaintance. After watching him on TV in the early 1970s I could see the Aspie similarities. (I could also see an extremely high intelligence.) They were both personally objectionable men in much the same way. I don't think Bob (Ba'al) is but I understand how such people really don't understand themselves much less do anything about what they are but be themselves, going with their strengths. Someone whose IQ is even higher than my father's was is Durk Pearson, with whom I still have occasional contact. He describes himself as as Aspie. In spite of his IQ--which is so high MIT couldn't top-measure it--he has difficulty remembering people's names. (He is also a very nice guy, unlike my Dad.)

Readers here may wonder why I'm riding Bob so hard. It's not out of a desire to bully but not to sanction his purblindedness and his glorification of his literalness. The world is not full of Bobs, it's full of people like me with normally functioning brains. I tried to crack his nut open but an appeal to possible dishonesty on his part utterly failed so it seems he's completely honest. He says he's incapable of lying. He has to be capable of lying or he's brain damaged like a Mongoloid. I suspect he has so disused the capability over the years of his life it has atrophied to the equivalent and he simply has no interest in lying. But he could, if he tried, but why should he? Well, if someone were to put a gun to a loved one's head but a lie would save that life he'd lie--wouldn't you, Bob? Choosing to lie or not lie is an expression of moral agency. Choosing is the essence of humanity. If you can choose you're human for that. (Mongoloids are human for other reasons.)

In such a sense Hitler was a human being, but he so chewed up his humanity by immoral choices he personified inhuman evil to the largest possibly imaginable degree.

(Shockley became so enamored with IQ he became as famous for eugenics as for his work on the transistor--and excoriated for it. He started Silicon Valley with his own company in the late 1950s and since people couldn't stand working for him they quit and started their own companies--one of them being Intel. The irony about IQ was Shockley's own IQ was only in the low 130s, perhaps showing IQ is not directly tied into genius. He considered himself to be a second-tier genius. That's accurate in that he wasn't first tier. I have no way of knowing anything but first tier respecting math and science and only second and third hand--that is, Einstein was a first tier genius but how do I and most people know this? [The genius guy who famously discovered the double helix--Watson--had an IQ of only 125.]

(I know Shockley's IQ because that elitest nursery school his daughter and my sister went to recorded the parents IQ and if not commonly shared amongst the parents then my Mother got it from knowing his wife. They went nutz about IQ in the 1920s and 30s. I don't know why. The IQ test came on line in a big way in WWI so the military could quickly sort out who was officer material and who was not. It was never a genius test or even an otherwise comprehensive intelligence test. A case can be made for brilliance. For genius brilliance seems not to be necessary but is frequently there. Genius is strictly what genius does for it cannot be objectively measured by numbers. IQ genius is a different animal. Ayn Rand called Nathaniel Branden a genius, but he had at the time more raw brain power than she did IMHO. They worked up each others' brains in the 1950s [i suspect]. I consider her to be the genius, however, not him [i am talking about extremely high creativity], except for one thing: the invention of the sentence completion technique, not his theorectical work in self esteem. [Your opinion may vary.] He didn't invent sentence completion. Sentence completion is like the wheel without the axle, cart and horse. The technique is taking the wheel and adding another wheel plus all that other stuff--that is, it is a structured way of using sentence completion which before him was just a jejune form of free association.)

--Brant

[Nerian]

It is clear that the nature of a mind is that it can make choices. It is also clear that the universe is deterministic. So I am left being a dumbfounded compatibilist.

Peter,

When I was at the stage where I did a lot of mulling about this, I suddenly asked myself if my approach was wrong. To put it as a graphic metaphor, I was thinking about the universe and causality as a straight line. 'This causes that which causes that which causes that' and so on.

What happens if I think in a circle? I still have 'this causes that which causes that' and so on moving in a line, but I also have another aspect--that any point I choose on the circle will be the start point and end point at the same time.

This means if I establish that clockwise means moving from determinism to free will and counterclockwise means the contrary, I can move in either direction (using this as a metaphor for an approach to thinking) without nullifying anything. When I move around the circle and get to the end point of 100% free will, I am also at the starting point of 100% determinism.

That's a mindfuck when you start going into it, but I see it as how the universe works. It is literally a holistic approach where the universe is one thing, not a movement from one state to another.

You can use this metaphor for form and content, for whole and part, for holon autonomy and for other metaphysical things like that.

Granted, we experience time in only one direction and linearly, but only in the non-mental realm. In the mix of the two, memories of the past and projections of the future all happen as the body and mind are happening in time. When you get to the purely mental realm, anything goes as far as time is concerned.

Do my or your thoughts not exist? They do exist. They may not represent other existents accurately at times, but even the most outlandish thought itself exists when it happens. Thoughts are things. And if a particular thought is so caught up in the past in its substance that it cannot be disconnected from the past without going out of existence as a thought, does it make any sense to call that a delusion? How about calling that its nature?

So keep on thinking.

It's good to realize there is more to learn.

Michael

I don't really understand what you mean by your circle thinking analogy. I don't see how that solves anything.

Thoughts exist in the same way motions exists. They aren't things any more than the motion of my hand is a thing. I don't really understand how or why people get caught up in that idea. Thoughts are not something special in a class of their own. There's nothing mystical here.

I assure you, I will never stop thinking. And I assure you, I will always be aware that there's more to learn. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll change my view. You seem to imply it will. More thinking or learning more might just strengthen my views. And if they accurate right now, that's what will happen.

[anthony]

But consciousness is an existent, and "an action of consciousness" (thought, reminiscence and emotion) is also an existent.

Therefore thought has identity, a specific nature.

(In my understanding, thought has identity as causality - the Law of Identity applied to action - the same causality as the motion of your hand).

"Existence exists and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms:-

That something exists which one perceives, and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."

[Galt]

[Frediano]

Speaking only for me...

My mind requires a means of implementation, which I believe is my brain, sustained by my body.

My brain is a layered construct, with a reptilian brain stem, a mammalian overlayer, and a human layer on top of that. These layers are value driven neural nets(outputs driven by a weighting of inputs). The lowest layers are hardwired and autonomous; the upper layers can tune the weightings(feedback) of some of the lower layers, and-- what I believe is true -- the highest layers can not only tune the weightings of the higher layers, but actually wire new weightings of new inputs; the highest levels of brain/mind function can -choose- what to value to achieve dopamine stimulation at the highest levels and achieve a sense of well being. And, as well, can choose to embrace or eschew shortcuts-- direct drug stimulation. We can choose to 'settle' for the 'same' stimulation via the shortcut of taking drugs, or we can assess that as a shortcut for the weakminded who might as well be brains in a jar, twitching away in a pointless cul de sac of stimulation devoid of effort, creativity, or meaning..

I can demonstrate an example of this to almost anyone reading this, acting inside of themselves(and have already). I'll repeat it here.

The squares marked 'A' and 'B' above are exactly the same shade of gray, which can be easily proven at the source website:

When the visual processing system of your mind first encounters the image above, its 'default' weigthings -- what are valued from the inputs presented to your visual processing layers -- value pattern recogntion over absolute greyscale detection. At first, for most people, it is difficult -- seeming impossible -- to see those squares as the same shade of greyscale. (I've had people get quite angry at me when I present this and assert that the squares are the same shade of greyscale, saying things like "I can see plainly with my eyes that they are not the same shade of greyscale" ...like I was telling them a lie or trying to pull a fast one over on them with some word games -- and it is a little disturbing for them -- a kind of realization -- when it is proven to them that they absolutely are the same shade of greyscale.

But after understanding the image and the fact that the squares are exactly the same shade of greyscale, it becomes difficult to see them as -different- shades of greyscale (because your mind has learned something about the image, and freshly changes the -weighting- of your visual processing system.

However, with some effort, we can 'see' the squares as either the same or different greyscale values. (Hint: if your mind has 'learned' the image and you are having difficulte 'seeing' them as different shades of greyscale, then focus on A, then traverse a path of adjacent blocks to B, or vice versa. This will help you 'see' -- or maybe, 'perceive' is a better word -- the blocks as lighter and darker again.

That, to me, is objective proof of the machinery inside our minds, and a screaming hint about our ability to -choose- what we value/weight from our neural processing nets, plural.

regards,

Fred

[anthony]

That, to me, is objective proof of the machinery inside our minds, and a screaming hint about our ability to -choose- what we value/weight from our neural processing nets, plural.

regards,

Fred

What a fine explanation, and real world illustration.

The brain is geared to pattern recognition -- consistency, or inconsistency in our surroundings.

The mind develops through value-judgment which is able to override the brain, by will.

The brain is 'for' survival, the mind is 'for' - flourishing.

Thanks for that, Frediano and pardon my over-simplistic rendering.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thoughts exist in the same way motions exists. They aren't things any more than the motion of my hand is a thing. I don't really understand how or why people get caught up in that idea.

That's a hell of an opinion.

Seems like a way to try to think neuroplasticity out of existence.

Except it doesn't work. Neuroplasticity is here to stay.

Motion doesn't create hand connections the way thoughts can create brand new brain connections that create thoughts that create brain connections that create thoughts that create brain connections...

Kind of like a circle--a causal circle...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That, to me, is objective proof of the machinery inside our minds, and a screaming hint about our ability to -choose- what we value/weight from our neural processing nets, plural.

regards,

Fred

What a fine explanation, and real world illustration.

The brain is geared to pattern recognition -- consistency, or inconsistency in our surroundings.

The mind develops through value-judgment which is able to override the brain, by will.

The brain is 'for' survival, the mind is 'for' - flourishing.

Thanks for that, Frediano and pardon my over-simplistic rendition.

Tony,

I agree that was elegant. I take it a little further (although the seed of my view is in what Frediano said).

In a philosophical sense, Rand held that volition is a causal agent, not just a result.

I agree with her and the mind is what runs causal volition. "I will it" is the primary cause for many actions that are so willed. And what wills it is the mind. I believe this is more than values, though, and certainly more than a result.

The problem with strict determinism (the claim that the mind is only the result of meat running some kind of chemical-electronic program that somehow "emerged" in evolution) is at the basis of most collectivist political systems.

Scratch any collectivist thinking and you will see a direct attack on the mind as a causal agent, meaning a direct attack on volition as a causal existent. They need to diminish the individual as a causal agent for collectivism to be accepted as a "greater cause." This is true for communism, bigotry, eugenics, progressivism, and social engineering of all sorts.

The idea that 'thoughts don't really exist, or they only exist like motion, so they can't be primary causes,' leads directly to this kind of thinking.

In my experience, when you get into a discussion with determinists, they tend to get irritated and hostile when you point this out. They don't see the religious nature of holding "emergence" in determinism as a kind of mysticism and it pisses them off to have someone say it is mysticism.

But it is. Emergence as the sole cause of form has to be accepted on faith.

One points to forms and existents and asks what is the fundamental principle of their existing? The determinist says "they emerged" just like the religious person says "God made them."

Anything before that? Nope.

It reminds me of Terrence McKenna's observation about science: "Give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest."

Michael

[anthony]

I guess I'm a physicialist of sorts. There's no evidence for anything other than physical reality. Anything non-physical is actually reducible to...

[...]

I am certain that cause and effect exists, and that all entities, including a brain, operate in this manner. Entities act in accordance with their nature. This leaves me seemingly with no choice but to concede that free will does not exist, but in actual fact I think this is the fallacy. It is clear that the nature of a mind is that it can make choices. It is also clear that the universe is deterministic. So I am left being a dumbfounded compatibilist. And I form no hypothesis to try to explain it. I think it's more of a question for neuroscientists than for philosophers. It strikes me as odd that one would try to 'figure it out' from one's armchair. It strikes me as like Aristotle's physics, completely unfounded. We may not even have the requisite knowledge about the brain and mind yet to begin to explain it. I think a proper definition of 'free' will and 'choice' is required to make sense of it too.

Michael> Yes, for sure.

I've quoted here from Peter's earlier post 32, which you first replied to. Not because I'm picking on him, but because he gave what is an honestly thoughtful and lucid account of the doubts many a scientific-minded person is prone to, that I have seen.

You answer them very well in this latest post, which I hope he mulls over.

It has very likely come clear to him that he is holding a contradiction which strikes at the core of Objectivism - contra volition; and therefore, the independent mind. ("I'm a physicalist of sorts...a dumbfounded compatibilist").

How often determinism follows materialism. (Skepticism, too).

It's often that smart, well-educated individuals make this error in their (attempted) avoidance of "mysticism".

It may be needlessly causing Peter dissonance at other levels of Objectivism (e.g. ethics?)

As you point out, the collectivist ideology is usually the consequence of determinism.

[Backlighting]

The good doctor states we can continually stack the deck with new brain cells thru exercise.

A cell here, a cell there...it adds up.