Posts tagged with Science...
Buddhism and the Brain →
MANY OF BUDDHISM’S CORE TENETS SIGNIFICANTLY OVERLAP WITH FINDINGS FROM MODERN NEUROLOGY AND NEUROSCIENCE. SO HOW DID BUDDHISM COME CLOSE TOGETTING THE BRAIN RIGHT?
Untitled///105
I am only pixels on a screen to you. You mean nothing.
Betrayal
This short story was written by a machine, a program which generates fiction. The machine appeared to have an “understanding” of the concept of betrayal.
Dave Atwood loved the university. He loved its ivy-covered clocktowers, its ancient and sturdy brick, and its sun-splashed verdant greens and eager youth. He also loved the fact that the university is free of the stark unforgiving trials of the business world — only this isn’t a fact: academia has its own tests, and some are as merciless as any in the marketplace. A prime example is the dissertation defense: to earn the PhD, to become a doctor, one must pass an oral examination on one’s dissertation. This was a test Professor John Irons enjoyed giving.
Dave wanted desperately to be a doctor. But he needed the signatures of three people on the first page of his dissertation, the priceless inscriptions which, together, would certify that he had passed his defense. One of the signatures had to come from Professor Irons, and Irons had often said — to others and to himself — that he was honored to help Dave secure his well-earned dream.
Well before the defense, Dave gave Irons a penultimate copy of his thesis. The professor read it and told Dave that it was absolutely first-rate, and that he would gladly sign it at the defense. They even shook hands in Iron’s book-lined office. Dave noticed that John’s eyes were bright and trustful, and his bearing paternal.
At the defense, Dave thought that he eloquently summarized Chapter 3 of his dissertation. There were two questions, one from Professor Rogers and one from Dr. Meteer; Dave answered both, apparently to everyone’s satisfaction. There were no further objections.
Professor Rogers signed. He slid the tome to Meteer; she too signed, and then slid it in front of Irons. Irons didn’t move.
“John?” Rogers said.
Irons still sat motionless. Dave felt slightly dizzy.
“John, are you going to sign?”
Later, Irons sat alone in his office, in his big leather chair, saddened by Dave’s failure. He tried to think of ways he could help Dave achieve his dream.
Watch. This. Film
Longish head essay ahead, and I know how easy it is to overlook these long posts, but this may get your brain thinking. Or is it your mind? Fuck knows.
Concerning the existence, and indeed location or nature of the mind, philosophers have attempted with varying degrees of success to form any infallible conclusion. Many theories and beliefs have been postulated, one of the foremost perhaps being Substance Dualism, a view proposed by René Descartes. Descartes believed that phenomena such as the soul or mind could be subjected to scientific and logical investigation, even supposing that the pineal gland in the brain was the “seat of the soul”. According to Substance (or Cartesian) Dualism, the universe is composed of two distinct and separate qualities: physical matter and non-material substance I.E the mind. These qualities exist separately - yet harmoniously – leading to the conclusion that the mind can exist without the brain. This is supported by the argument that the mental and physical realms have contrasting properties. Subjective mental events are known as qualia: ‘the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena’. In Thomas Nagel’s paper “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?” the existence of qualia, and Substance Dualism, is defended by the idea that if ones consciousness entered the body of a bat, we would still never understand what it would be like to be a bat, only what it is to be a bat. Therefore, the mind and its qualia exist independently of the body. This makes Substance Dualism indeed quite appealing, as “you” as an entity exist, and are not merely physical matter responding to stimuli. However, Dualism has been refuted, due to the fact that it cannot be said how interaction between the mind and brain occurs. As the brain (part of the physical realm) and the mind (part of the immaterial realm) are two separate and distinct substances, there is no physical, and therefore conceivable force, which causes them to interact. Compared to the causation of physical objects, where enough momentum or force may cause something to move, we can find no such cause when neurons fire in the brain, causing movement in the body.
A contrasting view of the mind, also known as the “Brain” or “Scientific Reductionism” theory simply state that the mind is the brain, and indeed that all mental activity can be accounted for via brain activity. As modern neuroscience progresses, we gain a deeper understanding of the complex workings of the human brain, observing when certain parts “light up”, behavior can be observed. We have even reached the levels of sophistication where by simply observing brain activity, we can work out what numbers a person is looking at. The view that the brain is synonymous with the mind is particularly convincing from a scientific and empirical standpoint, as it can be easily surmised that when the brain undergoes transformation (e.g through the use of hallucinogens) or damage, mental activity changes, or simply put, the mind changes. This would therefore suggest that the brain is indeed the mind. However, despite the fact mental activity and behavior are correlated, it is still only a correlation, not identity. Moreover, neuroscience reduces complex human emotions, such as love, down to mere brain activity. Studies have found that different parts of the brain activate when we see a friend, and then when we see a lover. However it is obvious to say that love is a far more complicate psychological phenomenon. Secondly, the “Brain” theory also essentially removes free will from the human condition. If we are merely animals with brains reacting to physical stimuli, we’re trapped in a physical world, where our mental activity is comprised of predictable neurons, free will no longer exists. Finally, the Chinese Room though experiment composed by John Searle concludes that we are capable of reproducing data without understanding it. To understand something, a mind must exist, or we would be zombies. However, we are capable of interacting with data we don’t understand, like a language we don’t understand (as if we machines); yet we are also capable of understanding a language. Where does “I” exist? This therefore proposes the existence of the mind as something more than the brain. Following on from this, it has been argued that the mind exists as a property of the brain. Without a brain, the mind and consciousness cannot exist, and is therefore dependant on the physical realm. Indeed, some things cannot exist until it used in a certain context. A video game is not a video game until it is put into a console is played, such as the mind is not the mind unless it has a brain to function in. The mind exists, but we are not much more than a brain.
Any thoughts?
