"MS" <marshmallow5 at yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KSCb6.4256$mo2.491918 at news1.news.adelphia.net...
| I believe this runs into the same logical errors of Cartesian dualism. I
| read Owen Flanagan's discussion of these in The Science of Mind. If
| consciousness is a non-physical entity, then how does it interact with a
| physical body? And if it does interact, then it's a physical entity.
|| I find the evidence overwhelming that the mind and consciousness are
| functions of our physical brain. All mental activity seems to be
| by some activity in the brain. Altering the brain alters some aspect of
| mind, and vice versa. Psychoactive drugs and brain illnesses can often
| produce surprising modular changes or losses in aspects of consciousness.
| Mind, brain, and behavior are all different aspects of the same thing.
|| Epistemologically, we cannot say that a mind cannot exist apart from a
| brain, but there is nothing to suggest that it does. Rather, there is much
| to say that consciousness reflects the workings of the brain.
I don't think we can necessarily come to that conclusion. Relevant in this
context is a message concerning the possible existence of a "soul" which I
posted in another newsgroup recently. I reproduce it below:
"I really think we need to first of all supply some sort of answer to the
question of what is meant by the soul. Do we take it as being our essential
self which is non-physical? Does this essential self change during the
course of our lives? I would imagine that people would reply no to this
question. But if this is so then clearly the soul cannot be identical to
the mind, as it is evident that our minds in terms of intelligence etc *do*
Bearing this in mind I would suggest that the state of ones mind *might be*
a consequence of the interface between soul and brain. Let me illustrate
what I mean by virtue of a rough analogy. The quality of the picture
displayed by a television set is dependent on the state of its internal
components. Yet the picture does not *originate* from these components.
The picture originates from electromagnetic radiation. Altering the
components, or even smashing the television set up will not extinguish or
alter the electromagnetic radiation.
Bearing in mind this is only a *loose* analogy, then I propose the soul may
be analogical akin to the electromagnetic radiation, the state of the brain
analogically akin to the state of the TV's components, and the mind at any
time analogically akin to the quality of the picture at any given time. We
might call this the "receiver" hypothesis of the brain.
Now the question is, are we analogically equivalent to this TV set or does
the brain *create* consciousness? (which I suppose could be considered to be
analogically equivalent to a TV set with a video recorder built into it).
Which is the more reasonable hypothesis? Do both hypotheses make sense or
is one of them unintelligible? Which is the prima facie more reasonable
hypothesis? When we take into consideration phenomena such as "near death
experiences", does this tend to supply evidence for the brain as a
"receiver" hypothesis? Is there any evidence supporting the hypothesis that
the brain generates consciousness, which cannot be accommodated by the
"receiver" hypothesis? Which hypothesis has greater explanatory power?"
Interesting Ian ICQ 76975385