What do you believe? (Mind-Brain realtionship)

[TruthVsComfort]

What do you believe?


(Cartesian)Dualism: The belief that our body and mind exists independently as two mutually irreducible entities. This lends to the possibility of our mind persisting even after the body dies. The mind acts upon the body and body on mind, as both mental and physical events are necessary for behavior to emerge (Corsini, 1999, p141).

Materialism: The belief that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including that of the mind, as due to material agents. This does not lend to the possibility of our mind persisting at the event of bodily death. It suggests that only physical events are necessary for behavior to emerge (Corsini, 1999, p727).

Mentalism: The belief that accepts mental qualities as causal realities, but at the same time denies that they can exist separately in an unembodied state apart from the functioning brain. Both mind and body act upon the other in a reciprocal fashion for behavior to emerge. Differs from Materialism in that it insists that the consciousness is determinant over the brains physical interactions. Differs from Dualism in that it denies consciousness persisting independent of the brain (Sperry, 1980).

 

[Rick W]

"behavior to emerge" seems the common denominator.

I'm not sure if you're looking for why people do what they do, believe what they believe or what. But I've found people usually don't fit one category or another. Mostly it's a mix that changes as experiences, information and age comes along. There may be a dominant pigeonhole for most but human behavior, or more accurately the categorization thereof, has proven to be an elusive objective since time began.
Why do people do what they do? Chess players have been trying to figure that one out for ages.

And so have ad agencies.

 

[Drew]

Hello TvsC:

If this kind of thing is interesting to you, then you have found a kindred spirit (and I, of course, use the term "spirit" guardedly).

I voted for "mentalist", but I almost went for materialist. I suppose that a true materialist denies the existence of any "agency" at the heart of the human person over and above the acting out of deterministic / quantum laws of physics in the context of the brain. I believe there is a real "you" that is not simply the aggregate effect of the presently known laws of physics being played in the machine known as the brain. This is not an easy subject to discuss and we all need to be as precise as we can be.

Another way of expressing my position is this: A true materialist would probably say that any action that a person takes is merely the result of the complex aggregation of zillions of "impersonal" electrochemical reactions taking place in the brain. I am inclined to believe that there "something" about us that is decoupled from slavish obedience to laws of physics.

However, I am probably the most "materialist" leaning person you will meet who is also a believing Christian. I am highly suspicious of dualism for both scriptural and philosophical reasons.

What are your thoughts about this, TvsC?

 

[TruthVsComfort]

Wow thank you both for the replies. Yes I would add that the question of 'why' people believe what they believe is more interesting than what they actually do believe at any given time.

Drew, I would agree with your description/analysis of materialism and we are on a similar page there. I have a hard time understanding how people are able to believe in an after life an not be dualistic though? Assuming that you are Christian and do believe in an afterlife. Dualism suggests that our consciousness is independent of the physical body and lives beyond it. I have had a number of people who are Christians at the same time do not pick dualism and it is interesting and something I do not understand at this point. Perhaps you can help.

 

[Drew]

I have a hard time understanding how people are able to believe in an after life an not be dualistic though? Assuming that you are Christian and do believe in an afterlife. Dualism suggests that our consciousness is independent of the physical body and lives beyond it.

Is it not possible that you are overlooking the possibility that man is consituted by his body and a "spirit" which, while it does indeed survive death, does not bear the property of consciousness?

We know of many examples in the real world where a property of some sort only flowers into being when two elements are actually integrated together - neither element brings the property into the integrated system.

Neither a light bulb in its carton nor electrical energy in the wall circuit gives off light. But when they are brought together, the integrated system indeed gives off light. And when the switch is turned off, neither one "carries away in itself" the property of giving off light.

This is how I think it is with the human person. Consciousness only exists when a spirit is embodied.

I am a Christian and I do believe in life after death - I just happen to think we will "sleep" until God resurrects us physically. To me, the afterlife is physical, not disembodied.

 

[Free]

But one must not forget that God is Spirit...

 

[Christian Commando]

Interesting responces, but I must vote for God and none of the 3 mentioned. Why?

God declares- "Let Us make man in Our Image".

God is speaking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Thus when God "created"- (bring forth something from nothing), man, He created the "spirit-soul" first. This is the spirit body, which represents the Holy Spirit, and "soul"- (spirit intellect), which represents God the Father.

Later, God "made"- (combine that which already exists into something else), man's physical body, which reresents Jesus Christ.

How did I arrive at this?

God shows He does the "creation" part of man, while still in the process of preparing the earth for man to live on. Yet, God spoke to them and instructed them after this "creation". Therefore, their spirit body had to have an itellect in order to undersatand communication.

Besides, God declares He knew us before we were born and even before concieved in the belly. Thus, He had to have known our spirits while stil in Heaven, before joined to the physical body after conception.

Why the "soul" represents God? because it is the center of our intellect, of which God Himself is the Father of the Trinity, of which Christ constantly states He does the Will of the Father. The spirit body of man represents the Holy Spirit, as God declares He acomplishes all things not by His Power, but by His "Spirit"- (Holy Spirit).

The Holy Spirit, God and Christ are all called- "He", thus, they are all of spirit body beings. (Not to mention the examples of God sitting on His Throne, Christ appearing in glorified form to Disciples, etc.)

Does man have a spirit-soul? Yes, look at story of King Saul where Samuel was sent back to appear to Saul as a spirit to chew him out for disturbing him- (after he was dead). Then you have God declaring for his Children- "to be absent from the body, present with the Lord", and also the opening of the fifth Seal in Rev. where souls of the dead are seen under an altar and cry out for God to help thier loved ones, God quiets them and gives them clothes to wear, the story of the richman and Lazarus.

The "mind", is the culmination of the spirit's "soul- (intellect) and the physical brain. Why? The physical body would just lay dormant, if not for a spirit-soul to give it life- God declares the body is lifeless without the spirit.

The "spirit-soul"of man is the eternally existing part of man, to reresent the eternal aspect of God. Notice when Christ appeared after ressurrection to the Disciples, His Spirit body and perfected physical Body both showed the scars of the persecution He suffered, but were not effected by them- (see also Rev. "A lamb as tho It had been slain"). Also note Paul speaking of God being able to see the "stripes" he aquired during his service for God and Christ in Ministry.

Thus, man, for this aspect of God, demonstrates the 3 part "creation" of man in God's Image, which is not covered by any of the 3 titles and beliefs mentiond above.

God Bless!!

 

[Guest]

Gordon H. Clark, probably the greatest Calvinist since the Reformation, has already demonstrated that dualism and materialism are absurd. I recommend anyone interested to acquire his classic history of philosophy titled, "Thales to Dewey." You can purchase a copy of this at the Trinity Foundation website: http://www.trinityfoundation.org

The third view, mentalism, as given above, is quite undefined, or maybe unexplained. For example, this view speaks of "mental qualities"--whatever that might be, then the term "mind" appears a bit later. Such a view reminds me of Epiphenominalism with its term 'Qualia', which seems to be the reverse of mentalism. Epiphenominalism, another form of dualism, states that the brain produces the mental states, while denying that the mental states can cause any effects upon the world. I would imagine a definition for "mind" would be useful in Mentalism, but none is given. Most likely, and this is my personal opinion, mentalism is simply another variant of dualism, but perhaps definitions will prove otherwise.

While studying the philosophy of mind, the thing I found most interesting was that very few people wanted to discuss the view, unmentioned here, of Calvinist philosopher George Berkely. Today, most hold to some form of empiricism when it comes to epistemological theory. Well, so did Berkely.

However, Logical Positivism, or modern science, with its verification principle and scientific method, is utterly helpless when faced with Berkely's simple yet devestating philosophy: esse est percipi.

Berkeley writes,
"That neither our thoughts, nor passions, nor ideas formed by the imagination, exist without the mind, is what every body will allow. And (to me) it seems no less evident that the various sensations or ideas imprinted on the senses, however blended or combined together (that is, whatever objects they compose), cannot exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving them. I think an intuitive knowledge may be obtained of this, by any one that shall attend to what is meant by the term exist, when applied to sensible things. The table I write on, I say, exists, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my study I should say it existed, meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it, or that some other spirit actually does perceive it [Notice that to Berkely there seems to be no difference between mind and spirit. They both perceive.--Red Beetle]. There was an odour, that is, it was smelled; there was a sound, that is, to say, it was heard; a colour or figure, and it was perceived by sight or by touch. This is all that I can understand by these and the like expressions. For as to what is said of the actual existence of unthinking things without any relation to their being perceived, that seems perfectly unintelligible. There esse is percipi, nor is it possible they should have any existence out of the mind or thinking things which perceive them."
--Principles,XXXV,xl--

Kant's struggle led him to posit the noumena "the thing in itself" as opposed to the phenomena "that which we sense." Kant had to even admit that we can never know the thing in itself, that is, the noumena. Berkely would answer such a view by pointing out that Kant can not even know that there is a noumena, but can only know of perceiving minds and the ideas they perceive.

Today, science wishes us to believe that the this thing some call a mind or spirit only exists in the brain. But, Berkely stands unanswered by Science. And, Berkely states that since the brain is perceptible, then it must, and can only exist in the mind. Quite the reverse!

Catholics, who adhere to Aquinas' , should also consider how to answer Berkely. For Aquinas simply baptized the empiricism of Aristotle. All very interesting.

You may be interested in how Dr. Gordon H. Clark answers his fellow Calvinist George Berkely concerning these matters, but you should read that for yourself.

Red Beetle