I don't believe that there's such thing as a spirit

[apeiron]

Photosynthesis seems to make use of QM, but that doesn't mean plants are magical. In the same way, it may be that a search for the mind emerging from the brain is a fruitless thing. In fact, the only way it CAN yield results is if one works with the assumption of a physical or spiritually tangible result that can be found, and by necessity that presupposes a very inaccurate view of human consciousness.

What is fruitless is to try do derive a theory of mind only from material processes.

Certainly a theory of mind will needed to be grounded in a materialistic account (one that talks about neurons and synapses, then microtubules and vesicles - but probably not any QM mechanism).

But my point is that it needs to be equally grounded in formal processes - talk about the structures and organisational principles. And this is what we do when we talk about neural net models or dissipative structure theory.

However, so few people study systems approaches that they don't realize there is this complementary direction of explanation. They know all about the trail of material causality that runs from simple QM and atomic scales, to complicated chemical, biological and neurological scale. But just cannot see the matching hierarchy of explanation that connects models of complex adaptive systems, or anticipatory systems, back to dissipative structure theory and thermodynamics generally.

And yes, the very term "consciousness" is incredibly unexamined. Most people who use the term could not tell you the difference between attention and habit, ideas and impressions, socialised human self-awareness and biological anticipatory modelling, etc.

It is a portmanteau term that creates a fiction we are dealing with just "one thing".

 

[nismaratwork]

What is fruitless is to try do derive a theory of mind only from material processes.

Certainly a theory of mind will needed to be grounded in a materialistic account (one that talks about neurons and synapses, then microtubules and vesicles - but probably not any QM mechanism).

But my point is that it needs to be equally grounded in formal processes - talk about the structures and organisational principles. And this is what we do when we talk about neural net models or dissipative structure theory.

However, so few people study systems approaches that they don't realize there is this complementary direction of explanation. They know all about the trail of material causality that runs from simple QM and atomic scales, to complicated chemical, biological and neurological scale. But just cannot see the matching hierarchy of explanation that connects models of complex adaptive systems, or anticipatory systems, back to dissipative structure theory and thermodynamics generally.

And yes, the very term "consciousness" is incredibly unexamined. Most people who use the term could not tell you the difference between attention and habit, ideas and impressions, socialised human self-awareness and biological anticipatory modelling, etc.

It is a portmanteau term that creates a fiction we are dealing with just "one thing".

What can I say except... yep, I agree with everything that you just wrote.

 

[apeiron]

What can I say except... yep, I agree with everything that you just wrote.

Agreement is liable to earn you an infraction on PF you realize . But you could say what kinds of theory of form you might favour.

For example, there is Friston and Hinton's Bayesian brain model which is getting quite detailed now...
http://reverendbayes.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/bayesian-theory-in-new-scientist/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_brain

And here is a proper book representing the cutting edge of mainstream thought...
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11106

Or there is the similar and earlier adaptive resonance models of Stephen Grossberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Grossberg
http://cns-web.bu.edu/~steve/

These are what theories of form actually look like at the detailed neuroscientific level.

 

[nismaratwork]

Agreement is liable to earn you an infraction on PF you realize . But you could say what kinds of theory of form you might favour.

For example, there is Friston and Hinton's Bayesian brain model which is getting quite detailed now...
http://reverendbayes.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/bayesian-theory-in-new-scientist/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_brain

And here is a proper book representing the cutting edge of mainstream thought...
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=11106

Or there is the similar and earlier adaptive resonance models of Stephen Grossberg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Grossberg
http://cns-web.bu.edu/~steve/

These are what theories of form actually look like at the detailed neuroscientific level.

I'm familiar with the Bayesian theory in relation to economics, computation, and neurology so I'm skewed towards that. The cutting edge is interesting, but... well... it's the edge and I don't feel comfortable hanging my hat on the ideas espoused. Grossberg's work is interesting, but I prefer the latter two, especially the Bayesian model. I never was able to accept some of the notions of how adaptation occurs as presented by Stephen Grossberg, but that could be my own limitation.

 

[brainstorm]

Certainly there have been examples of this, where "infestation by devils" and other variations were blamed for deviations from the norm, illness, and more. It's very common to ascribe to an external force, effects caused by mechanisms that we don't understand.

Strangely, I don't know when the language of "norms" and "deviance" surfaced in social science. I can't imagine they precede the notion that behavior can be defined in terms of statistical patterns of a larger population. I also wonder if "spirit" was always used to describe what would now be called "deviance" or whether normative behavior was also explained in terms of spirits. In a modern materialist mindset, it is common to think in terms of vectors for pathology but not for health - I think it is very recent that specific pro-health "vectors" are being considered rather than just treating health as the natural state of a "normally" functioning body. I have heard of being in "good spirits" or the religious notion of "holy spirit" but I don't know of any other specific references to spirits in a positive context. On the other hand, what kind of bad spirits are ever mentioned except "evil spirits" generally?

Mind studies is plagued by this kind of beginner's metaphysics. Systems arise as the interaction of substance and form - local construction and global constraints. Or chaos and nous as Anaxagoras put it.

So consciousness has to be modeled in terms of substance and form, not crude substance and rarified substance. (And the kinds of forms we are talking about are shaping purposes like the need to anticipate the world, to model reality).

Maybe these people just haven't received enough nous from the aether:) Thanks for the history lesson. It's always interesting, if confounding, to hear these kinds of explanations that make little if any logical sense (at least not upon first reading). Well, they make a little sense but beyond the initial distinction between form and substance, I don't see the logic in the sub-level distinctions.

 

[nismaratwork]

Strangely, I don't know when the language of "norms" and "deviance" surfaced in social science. I can't imagine they precede the notion that behavior can be defined in terms of statistical patterns of a larger population. I also wonder if "spirit" was always used to describe what would now be called "deviance" or whether normative behavior was also explained in terms of spirits. In a modern materialist mindset, it is common to think in terms of vectors for pathology but not for health - I think it is very recent that specific pro-health "vectors" are being considered rather than just treating health as the natural state of a "normally" functioning body. I have heard of being in "good spirits" or the religious notion of "holy spirit" but I don't know of any other specific references to spirits in a positive context. On the other hand, what kind of bad spirits are ever mentioned except "evil spirits" generally?




Maybe these people just haven't received enough nous from the aether:) Thanks for the history lesson. It's always interesting, if confounding, to hear these kinds of explanations that make little if any logical sense (at least not upon first reading). Well, they make a little sense but beyond the initial distinction between form and substance, I don't see the logic in the sub-level distinctions.

In the case of western European cultures, there is very little to be said for "good spirits", until you go back to Celtic and Norse legends... and even then it's a bit iffy. In the case of Indian (both types), Asian, and many other cultures you have spirits which rule or can aid everything from personal health to the fecundity of livestock. I can get a bunch of examples online, but it's not hard to research, and it's way off the original topic here. It would make for a good new thread however, and I'd be up for that.

 

[tJjohnstone]

WOW! Thanks for all the responses! I'm very tired but I'll have a read and respond tomorrow :D.

 

[tJjohnstone]

tJohnstone: Sorry that I got your intent off kilter!

No worries :)

You might want to look at:

The Emerging Physics of Consciousness - edited by J. A. Tuszynski - Springer 2006

I'll have a look, however I'm skeptical due to what others have said.

So, yes, in my experience, we, humans, have souls. Or rather, souls enable us to be aware and feel while existing in this physical bodies which are governed my natural laws, but via souls, free-will is possible, not just consciousness, pain and pleasure and other "human" qualities.

Sorry, but that simply isn't how science works.

 

[tJjohnstone]

Could the idea of spirits represent a premodern attempt to describe certain kinds of cultural processes where people's subjectivity comes to function in terms of subconsciously learned cultural parameters? This might be something like the way physicists used to try to explain the propagation of light with reference to a fictitious medium, "ether."

I've wondered that.

The killer is, consciousness may be largely illusory

A question I do have though is, if we don't have free choice, why would we have evolved the illusion of it? Honestly, I don't know if we have free choice, I haven't researched it enough to form an opinion, it's a very interesting topic as well.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I think you would be pretty hard-pressed to find studies that don't support the materialist perspective. You will find a wealth of research that demonstrates that if you physically or chemically change the brain, you alter the also mind/personality/behavior, more or less, what many people regard as "the soul".

I recall my introductory behavioral neuroscience textbook started off with a history of of philosophical views on materialism and dualism, and then basically went on to say: "If you have any ideas about dualism, get them out of your head right now."

Lesson 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage" .

A question I do have though is, if we don't have free choice, why would we have evolved the illusion of it? Honestly, I don't know if we have free choice, I haven't researched it enough to form an opinion, it's a very interesting topic as well.

New topic, so let's save that for a new thread.