Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mind/Body Problem...

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Not one person had said to me that I could/might be right about spirit being the source of intelligence and reason.

    That is because you have so far not given anyone any reason to.

    You haven't even defined what "spirit" is, let alone attempted to explain how it could be the source of intelligence and reason, how it would interact with our brains and our bodies, how it would develop in the first place, or how it would process our thoughts and ideas, or why we have brains if it in fact does.

    To offer absolutely zero support for your own theory and then to complain that no one else is entertaining it is a bit rich Kelly. When this is pointed out you simply say you can't explain it "scientifically". So how can you explain it? What is it? What does it do and how does it do it?

    Support your own theory first Kelly, then others might support it.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Nobody can rule it out just like you can't rule out God's existence.
    That is not a reason to support something. No one can rule out that strawberries some how supernaturally control our intelligence, that doesn't mean people should entertain the idea.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I know nobody can prove that spirit exists but it's a valid belief and theory and it's arrogant to say that it's nonsense.

    Firstly no one can prove anything exists. You know this, we have been over this before. Science cannot prove anything

    Secondly you don't have a theory of the spirit, so it is not a valid belief. A theory is a model of what you think happens. You don't have this You don't have a theory of what it is, you don't have a theory of what it does and you certainly don't have a theory of how you think it does it.

    You seemly have a vague idea, based solely on your religious faith, that you think it exists, even though you don't actually know what it actually is beyond calling it "spirit"

    To be honest I really tired of people coming onto this forum with their "theories" that are actually nothing of the sort and then calling people arrogant when they don't automatically accept what they are saying at face value :mad:
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I have difficulties with the idea that a brain can have intelligence, produce ideas and consciousness and love.
    That is fair enough (I'm not really following what these difficulties are, but you wouldn't be the first to ponder how the brain can do what it does).

    But it seems rather contradictory to suppose that you can't understand how the brain alone does something and then attempt to explain that with the addition of a concept like a spirit which no one has any clue what that is or how it does anything at all, let alone produce consciousness.

    Which to be honest strongly suggests that this is all more an excercise in trying to find some material reason for the religious idea of the spirit, than actually figuring out how humans form consciousness and thought. The concept of the spirit answers absolutely nothing in relation to the later question.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I have always been against the reductionist view that man is nothing more that a complex arrangement of atoms.

    No doubt, but is the objection based on rationality or simply religious theory?


  • Options
    #93
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Not one person had said to me that I could/might be right about spirit being the source of intelligence and reason.
    Well, you'll have to explain what you mean by "spirit" before we can talk about whether it's a realistic candidate explanation.
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I have difficulties with the idea that a brain can have intelligence, produce ideas and consciousness and love. I have always been against the reductionist view that man is nothing more that a complex arrangement of atoms.
    That's a mischaracterization of the reductionist view. While the brain may be a complex arrangement of atoms, that not all that it is. In the same way that a Bach fugue may just be vibrations in the air, but that's certainly not all that it is -- it's far, far, far more.

    I think where you're going wrong is that you haven't thought sufficiently about "spirit" and what it really means, and what it implies and whether it's a realistic or meaningful thing to posit the existence of.

    .


  • Options
    #94
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    robindch wrote: »
    I think where you're going wrong is that you haven't thought sufficiently about "spirit" and what it really means, and what it implies and whether it's a realistic or meaningful thing to posit the existence of.

    QFT

    The problem here isn't really the brain, or what it can or cannot do. The problem is Kelly's rather undefined and abstract idea of "spirit"


  • Options
    #95
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    I find it strange that Kelly1 accepts that animals can funtion just fine without this 'spirit'.

    Maybe the question should be, "What is it about human brains that requires a supernatural explanation?"


  • Options
    #96
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users Posts: 9,557 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Hello folks, I'd like to open a discussion about the nature of the mind...
    ...Personally, I think the only satisfying answer is spirit. I believe it is a spirit which gives us intelligence and the ability to love. I know spirit is unsatisfactory to atheists because spirit is mostly undetectable.
    If you've ever seen anyone with Alzheimers or Dementia deteriorate then you'd witness your whole argument fly out the window.

    There's been several pieces of research recently that has shown a tentative link between serial-killers and brain-trauma in early life.

    The part of the brain that deals with 'empathy' is located towards the front of the brain. I've seen numerous documentaries on people involved in car-crashes who get that part of the brain pushed up against the jagged inner cranial surface of the forehead and suddenly lose their ability to love.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Not one person had said to me that I could/might be right about spirit being the source of intelligence and reason. Nobody can rule it out just like you can't rule out God's existence. I know nobody can prove that spirit exists but it's a valid belief and theory and it's arrogant to say that it's nonsense.
    Could you please provide an example of something, anything, that is INVALID. Or is the concept non-existant to you?
    kelly1 wrote: »
    Not one person had said to me that I could/might be right about spirit being the source of intelligence and reason
    You haven't said to any of us that our reductionist opinions could/might be right, your reason for this being:
    kelly1 wrote: »
    I have difficulties with the idea that a brain can have intelligence, produce ideas and consciousness and love. I have always been against the reductionist view that man is nothing more that a complex arrangement of atoms.

    So basically, you "just are" against reductionism. What kind of explanation is that?


  • Options
    #98
    Wreck
    Registered Users Posts: 2,139 ✭✭✭Wreck


    kelly1 wrote: »

    I think at this point I'm going the throw in the towel because I can't make any headway. I still believe spirit has a lot to do with intelligence, reason and love but I'm not likely to find much support for that theory here.

    Thanks to all who contributed (positively).

    How can anybody be expected to support your 'theory' when you failed to explain anything about it?


  • Options
    #99
    Myksyk
    Registered Users Posts: 3,550 ✭✭✭Myksyk


    I think that it is obvious, by any reasonable analysis of the accumulated evidence, that the brain is the seat of thought, behaviour and emotion. Damage (lesions) to specific areas of the brain result in specific intellectual, social or psychological impairments. Given that we can see that people's cognitive functioning, behaviour, social skills and emotions can be dramatically changed by lesions to the brain it seems incredibly obtuse to refuse to accept that it controls these aspects of our being in the first place.


  • Options
    #100
    BarbC
    Registered Users Posts: 16 ✭BarbC


    What is there to suggest humans and animals DON'T have a spirit?


  • Options
    #101
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    BarbC wrote: »
    What is there to suggest humans and animals DON'T have a spirit?
    The lack of any evidence whatsoever?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,425 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    BarbC wrote: »
    What is there to suggest humans and animals DON'T have a spirit?

    What proof is there that humans aren't infected with the tortured souls of long dead aliens?


  • Options
    #103
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    BarbC wrote: »
    What is there to suggest humans and animals DON'T have a spirit?
    Well evolution for a start.

    Humans and animals have evolved through Darwinian evolution to the complex organisms we are today.

    How would a "spirit" have evolved and for what evolutionary purpose? How would that even work?


  • Options
    #104
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    BarbC wrote: »
    What is there to suggest humans and animals DON'T have a spirit?
    What is a spirit?


  • Options
    #105
    An Fear Aniar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,377 ✭✭✭An Fear Aniar


    DublinWriter wrote: »
    The part of the brain that deals with 'empathy' is located towards the front of the brain. I've seen numerous documentaries on people involved in car-crashes who get that part of the brain pushed up against the jagged inner cranial surface of the forehead and suddenly lose their ability to love.

    That's interesting. I'm wondering how they measured the ability to love.


    .


  • Options
    #106
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    I would have thought it's pretty easy to tell if someone close to you has lost the ability to love.


  • Options
    #107
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    An Fear Aniar wrote: »
    That's interesting. I'm wondering how they measured the ability to love.

    Using a brain scanner. By watching which parts of the brain "light up" under a scanner when a person is shown pictures or objects that remind them of someone they have claim to be in love with, doctors can identify which parts of the brain are responsible for the emotions associated with "love"

    They found that it is actually a combination of different areas of the brain, such as the medial insula (known to be asssociated with gut feelings), and the anterior cinguate, associated with feelings of happiness and which can be triggered to produce euphoria with certain drugs.


  • Options
    #108
    905
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭905


    An interesting point about the whole mind/body dichotomy is the fact that it doesn't exist in most societies. Often when a doctor couldn't explain an affliction they would go "It must be a mental problem" and refer the patient to the psychiatrist. It's good to see that scientists at least are reclaiming the mind.

    As for the idea that animals don't have spirits, how do we know they don't?


  • Options
    #109
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    905 wrote: »
    As for the idea that animals don't have spirits, how do we know they don't?
    If you're referring to "consciousness" as opposed to a metaphysical spirit, then the strict answer is that we don't.

    All we can really do is define consciousness and intelligence along our parameters (as our intelligence and consciousness defines them) and then test animals against these parameters.

    Scientists are constantly being surprised by discoveries about animals when they display behaviours or communication patterns that we didn't expect them to display. This is mainly because we either never tested for them before (they weren't in the parameters) or the test was carried out with all external factors eliminated.

    To explain the second point further - imagine an alien species taking a human, putting him in a room for three days with no clothes and no other humans and then testing him along the parameters of their intelligence. They'd probably see some degree of intelligence, but without the ability to communicate with him or watch his normal societal interaction, they'd probably think he was just another animal.


  • Options
    #110
    905
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭905


    I was being sarcastic, but good reply seamus.


  • Options
    #111
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    905 wrote: »
    As for the idea that animals don't have spirits, how do we know they don't?

    Well because the purpose of a concept of a "spirit" is to comfort people and make them feel special and important. That purpose would be some what negated if everything alive had a spirit, you would be back to the issue of humans simply being another animal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    mossieh
    Registered Users Posts: 436 ✭✭mossieh


    DaveMcG wrote: »
    Don't be f*cking ridiculous........

    How about this for a satisfying answer: I DO NOT KNOW

    There's a crazy phrase you don't often hear coming from theists' mouths! It's usually translated into the following: GOD DID IT :rolleyes:

    I tend to leave sh*t like this to people who have studied it for years and experimented and analysed their results. Y'know, like we did with physics and biology and chemistry........ You'll find they tend to yield results when they're not being undermined by moronic sh*t like this. Psychology as a scientific subject is relatively young, so give it time to develop as a discipline and you'll have adequate answers which you can then force into your Biblical interpretation of everything, like an ill-placed jigsaw piece.

    This is OTT I reckon, no need to call somebody 'ridiculous' or refer to their ideas as 'moronic shít'. Reported for abuse.


  • Options
    #113
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Apologies for the offense, I've learned my lesson and will try to resist posting in these sort of threads in future


  • Options
    #114
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Phew, I was right to ignore the situation and hope it would go away. ;)

    Go forth and sin no more, DaveMcG!


  • Options
    #115
    Obo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 70 ✭✭Obo


    Thought this might be interesting for this discussion.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/229

    "Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor had an opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: One morning, she realized she was having a massive stroke. As it happened -- as she felt her brain functions slip away one by one, speech, movement, understanding -- she studied and remembered every moment. This is a powerful story about how our brains define us and connect us to the world and to one another."


Advertisement