"The mind is the brain" and "The mind reduces to the brain"? — khaled
On the other hand, if the answer is yes, then the task is to explain how "the mind reduces to the brain." — TheMadFool
The latter makes sense and the former does not. "Mind" is predicate (processing), "brain" is subject (processor) like e.g. walk and legs, respiration and lungs, respectively. Mind(ing) is what a brain does.What's the difference between saying "The mind is the brain" and "The mind reduces to the brain"? — khaled
just a side effect of brains — khaled
I don't see that a certain states of mind is exactly equal to a certain state of mind. — Banno
Khaled believing that the Pope is Catholic may "correspond" to various different brain states from one time to another. — Banno
Anomalous monism — Banno
I'm assuming you mean "of brain". — khaled
The upshot seems to be that determinism is a metaphysical assumption from which the classical determinist view of physics follows, and that this assumption can be removed with suitable mathematical alterations. — Banno
The difference between identity theory and anomalous monism is the rejection of a one-to-one correspondence between brain states and states of mind in favour of a many-to-many relation (very roughly) — Banno
The latter makes sense and the former does not. "Mind" is predicate (processing), "brain" is subject (processor) like e.g. walk and legs, respectively. Mind(ing) is what a brain does — 180 Proof
Then what’s the difference between identity theory and reductionism? — khaled
How are they different specifically? Different like in ontological dualism? Different how? — khaled
The latter makes sense and the former does not. "Mind" is predicate (processing), "brain" is subject (processor) like e.g. walk and legs, respiration and lungs, respectively. Mind(ing) is what a brain does. — 180 Proof
The problem with this is that we can observe the guts digesting, we cannot observe the brain minding. It's only one or the other - we can observe a brain, or we can observe our own mind. Brains only appear in minds - as mental models of other people's minds. We never observe minds in brains, like we do digesting in guts. Brains and minds are the same thing, just from different perspectives. Thinking that it's brains that are really "out there" is naive realism.Yep. Mind is to brain as digestion is to guts. Digestion is not a single state of the gut, but what the gut does from teeth to arse hole. Digestion is not the very same thing as gut; mind is not the very same thing as brain. Mind is what the brain does. — Banno
Mind is to brain as digestion is to guts. Digestion is not a single state of the gut, but what the gut does from teeth to arse hole. Digestion is not the very same thing as gut; mind is not the very same thing as brain. Mind is what the brain does. — Banno
For anyone who doesn't know: Identity theory in philosophy of mind is the theory that mental states are brain states. Your anger/love/pain/joy is, ontologically, exactly, the firing of certain neurons and the movement of certain chemicals. — khaled
I had no idea you're a mysterian too ... :sweat:The problem with this is that we can observe the guts digesting, we cannot observe the brain minding — Harry Hindu
What we see on the screen is the "mind". It is a consequence of all components working together, but we cannot find "where it is", we can only view it as a result of the components working. — Christoffer
Certain mental states are engendered by neuronal states — Aryamoy Mitra
First and foremost, there'll always remain an indeterminacy at the heart of the mind-body problem — Aryamoy Mitra
as opposed to creating a satisfactory and infallible scheme, for deriving answers to unforeseen questions — Aryamoy Mitra
Personally, I adhere to Epiphenomenalism in this regard — Aryamoy Mitra
For anyone who doesn't know: Identity theory in philosophy of mind is the theory that mental states are brain states. — khaled
What's the difference between saying "The mind is the brain" and "The mind reduces to the brain"? — khaled
Firstly mental states are not identical to brain states; a state of happiness is a state of the person, not just a state of the brain. — Janus
this would be to say that the mind can be exhaustively understood in terms of brain processes, which it obviously cannot. — Janus
whereas 'mind' as a noun is misleading — Janus
Firstly mental states are not identical to brain states; a state of happiness is a state of the person, not just a state of the brain. A brain state is a state of affairs of networks of neurons in the brain, a state of happiness is not such a neural state of affairs, but an emotional state, even if it could be correlated with a state of affairs of neural networks.
The mind is not the brain; if anything the mind is a process, not a thing; whereas the brain may be understood to be either thing or process, depending on the perspective of view.
So the mind is also not reducible to the brain; because to say this would be to say that the mind can be exhaustively understood in terms of brain processes, which it obviously cannot. 'Brain' makes sense as a noun, whereas 'mind' as a noun is misleading; better to think of it as a verb. — Janus
Nope, certain mental states ARE neuronal states. It’s not that there exists “mental states” as separate from neuronal states, and the formal is caused by the latter no, they are literally the same thing. It’s not dualistic. — khaled
First and foremost, there'll always remain an indeterminacy at the heart of the mind-body problem
— Aryamoy Mitra
There is no mind body problem in identity theory. How does your emotion of “anger” interact with your body? Confused question. Your emotion of “anger” IS a body state. It’s not something external that “interacts with” your body.
as opposed to creating a satisfactory and infallible scheme, for deriving answers to unforeseen questions
— Aryamoy Mitra
Why not?
Personally, I adhere to Epiphenomenalism in this regard
— Aryamoy Mitra
I think epiphenomenalism is the only way out for a dualist who wants to respect the science. — khaled
You're conflating mental states with states of a person? Mental states are brain states, just from a different perspective. Is your big toe and pubic hair included in this happiness that your taking about? We all know that the same thing looks different from different perspectives. Why would it be any different for brains - (observing a brain that is part of you vs observing a brain that is not part of you)?Firstly mental states are not identical to brain states; a state of happiness is a state of the person, not just a state of the brain — Janus
Strange. You seem to believe that a processor can exist independent of its processing.I had no idea you're a mysterian too ... — 180 Proof
if one is downtrodden, then is being downtrodden interchangeable with demonstrating a specific neurochemistry? — Aryamoy Mitra
Is the relation semantic, or metaphorical? — Aryamoy Mitra
Without one, this seems an absurd equivalence. — Aryamoy Mitra
I do? Cite where I've given you that impression.Strange. You seem to believe that a processor can exist independent of its processing. — Harry Hindu
You're conflating mental states with states of a person? Mental states are brain states, just from a different perspective. Is your big toe and pubic hair included in this happiness that your taking about? — Harry Hindu
I agree with most of this. I think the variability in perspective that enables us to understand ‘brain’ as either/both a thing and a process is important here, because there is a similar variability that enables us to understand ‘mind’ as either/both a process and a capacity. — Possibility
To refer to a ‘mind state’ or mental state is to reduce mind to only one temporal aspect, but the mind isn’t structured that way - it’s more like a block universe. So a ‘mind state’ is a false construct that doesn’t correspond to reality. — Possibility
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.