The issue is one of whether or not the mind itself is strictly constituted of quantitative energy - such that each conceivable thought (and intention, desire, emotion, perspective, percept, ect.) is part of the quantitative energy of the universe that is conserved. If so, and if e = mc^2, then an individual thought is equivalent to some physical mass multiplied by the speed of light squared that, via the law of conservation, removes energy from the non-mental aspects of the universe by virtue of the thought’s occurrence. Um … yea, I don’t think so. Though I’m sure some physicalists may want to endorse such a view. — javra
This paragraph is not at all clear. — Banno
Can we be sure the brain is where the mind is? A friend likes to remind me that our digestive system contains more neurons than a cat's entire brain and generally cats do ok. — TiredThinker
I don't see a problem. — Banno
Yes, the theory of evolution has a mass. But unfortunately that mass is mixed in with a whole lot of other stuff in such a way that it would not be calculable. — Banno
You cannot tell me the mass of all the rocks in the Simpson Desert, therefore those rocks do not have mass. — Banno
But have it your way. — Banno
There is a plausible functional story for the stable world illusion. First of all, we do have a (top-down) sense of the space around us that we cannot currently see, based on memory and other sense data—primarily hearing, touch, and smell. Also, since we are heavily visual, it is adaptive to use vision as broadly as possible. Our illusion of a full field, high resolution image depends on peripheral vision—to see this, just block part of your peripheral field with one hand. Immediately, you lose the illusion that you are seeing the blocked sector. When we also consider change blindness, a simple and plausible story emerges. Our visual system (somehow) relies on the fact that the periphery is very sensitive to change. As long as no change is detected it is safe to assume that nothing is significantly altered in the parts of the visual field not currently attended.
But this functional story tells nothing about the neural mechanisms that support this magic. What we do know is that there is no place in the brain where there could be a direct neural encoding of the illusory detailed scene (Kaas and Collins 2003). That is, enough is known about the structure and function of the visual system to rule out any detailed neural representation that embodies the subjective experience. So, this version of the NBP really is a scientific mystery at this time.
There are intractable problems in all branches of science; for Neuroscience a major one is the mystery of subjective personal experience. This is one instance of the famous mind–body problem (Chalmers 1996) concerning the relation of our subjective experience (aka qualia) to neural function.
Banno's method is to drag all of these debates into the realm of the banal by repeated use of innappopriate metaphors, cliches and over-simplifications repeated ad nauseum until all interest is drained out of the discussion and everyone looses interest. The debate isn't resolved so much as strangled in the crib. — Wayfarer
In brief, the neural binding problem is that neuroscience can find no functional area of the brain which can account for this unified sense of self. — Wayfarer
Same way you did for the rocks. — Banno
This is how folk respond when their arguments have been flattened. — Banno
What if the mind, perhaps of ethereal substance doesn't effect the physical world and therefore cannot be measured? Maybe it is essentially 0 dimensional or omnipresent and cannot be quantified? And in any event even with physical measurements we keep underestimating the electrical and chemical effects within the brain. It is yet still too subtle. But assuming the brain is a receiver as some say, but not the mind, couldn't the mind influence the brain and the brain influences the body? What if we can't measure before a thought? Tedious perhaps, but what if that ended up being the case? Physics and science can operate within limited spaces if need be? — TiredThinker
You can empirically investigate - such as by visually seeing, touching, or smelling - thoughts such as the theory of evolution? Because empirical investigation is part and parcel of how I'd quantify the rocks' mass. No empirical data about them, no quantification of their mass. — javra
What does the theory of evolution visually look like? — javra
Well what if the information goes in one direction? — TiredThinker
Humans are capable of intentional actions, as are animals. — Wayfarer
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.