Is the Mind Physical?: Dissecting Conscious Brain Tissue

[Philosophy Now]

by Peter Lloyd

https://philosophynow.org/issues/6/Is_t ... ain_Tissue

[Hobbes' Choice]

Poor Poor Peter. he is stuck in Zeno's paradox. Not only can he not have consciousness like the rest of us, he is forced never to arrive at the destination of his journey.

Therefore, if my mental sensations of sight and sound are just brain events, then they are not connected in my mind at the time of their occurrence. For it takes time for them to connect in any way. So, how can they form a single stream of consciousness and appear to be simultaneous?

Alternatively he could reflect on the fact that he constantly does arrive at his destinations, and maybe his brain is consistent with physicalism.

[Dalek Prime]

I'll say yes, and leave it at that.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'll say yes, and leave it at that.

Not very meaningful when you don't say what you are saying yes to.

[Dalek Prime]

I'll say yes, and leave it at that.

Not very meaningful when you don't say what you are saying yes to.

To the title. If I don't quote something, I am answering the title question.

[Hobbes' Choice]

I'll say yes, and leave it at that.

Not very meaningful when you don't say what you are saying yes to.

To the title. If I don't quote something, I am answering the title question.

You've not read the article then?

[Dalek Prime]

You've not read the article then?

No. And you've not read any books on antinatalism, but still are determined to discuss it. So what's your point, hypocrite? My goodness, you're full of shit.

[Obvious Leo]

Mental processes are exclusively physical because they involve energy exchange between particles of matter. In fact large and complex minds, such as those which evolved in homo sapiens, are very expensive things to run in terms of their energy requirements.

That's why they stop working when we're dead.

[Hobbes' Choice]

You've not read the article then?

No. And you've not read any books on antinatalism, but still are determined to discuss it. So what's your point, hypocrite? My goodness, you're full of shit.

OOOOOOOOhh at home to Mr. Grumpy are you?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Mental processes are exclusively physical because they involve energy exchange between particles of matter. In fact large and complex minds, such as those which evolved in homo sapiens, are very expensive things to run in terms of their energy requirements.

That's why they stop working when we're dead.

Did you se the article? It seems to be suggesting that because only parts of the brain, or parts at a particular time can experience things, it requires something outside of physicalism.

[Dalek Prime]

You've not read the article then?

No. And you've not read any books on antinatalism, but still are determined to discuss it. So what's your point, hypocrite? My goodness, you're full of shit.

OOOOOOOOhh at home to Mr. Grumpy are you?

No. Just showing your hypocrisy.

[henry quirk]

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I say mind is what a brain (of particular and peculiar complexity, embedded in a body, embedded in an enviroment) 'does' (in the same way that legs 'do' walking).

There's no profit in trying to examine walking (as event) apart from that which 'does' walking, that which walks. In the exact same way, there's no profit in examining mind apart from that which 'does' mind, that which thinks.

All the jargon in the world (physicalism, etc.) contributes not one thing to the conversation, which - properly - ought to be about how mind (self, 'I') arises or extends out, is maintained, remains coherent.

Plainly: there is no in-dwelling spirit, no dual-aspected substance, no ethereal conduit...there's just 'you', a finite, discrete, complex, on-going, recursive, organic, event...that's it...that's all.

Ain't that enough? Aren't 'you', as a dynamic ordering of chemicals and electricity, miraculous enough? Do we really need to be ensouled to be spectacular?

And: no, I didn't read the friggin' article either.

[Dalek Prime]

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I say mind is what a brain (of particular and peculiar complexity, embedded in a body, embedded in an enviroment) 'does' (in the same way that legs 'do' walking).

There's no profit in trying to examine walking (as event) apart from that which 'does' walking, that which walks. In the exact same way, there's no profit in examining mind apart from that which 'does' mind, that which thinks.

All the jargon in the world (physicalism, etc.) contributes not one thing to the conversation, which - properly - ought to be about how mind (self, 'I') arises or extends out, is maintained, remains coherent.

Plainly: there is no in-dwelling spirit, no dual-aspected substance, no ethereal conduit...there's just 'you', a finite, discrete, complex, on-going, recursive, organic, event...that's it...that's all.

Ain't that enough? Aren't 'you', as a dynamic ordering of chemicals and electricity, miraculous enough? Do we really need to be ensouled to be spectacular?

And: no, I didn't read the friggin' article either.

Oh Henry, you lighten my day.

[Obvious Leo]

Mental processes are exclusively physical because they involve energy exchange between particles of matter. In fact large and complex minds, such as those which evolved in homo sapiens, are very expensive things to run in terms of their energy requirements.

That's why they stop working when we're dead.

Did you se the article? It seems to be suggesting that because only parts of the brain, or parts at a particular time can experience things, it requires something outside of physicalism.

I don't subscribe to the magazine, although I occasionally buy a copy at my local newsagent, so I haven't read the article. Is it any different from the usual dualist line of shit which is ordinarily peddled by navel-gazers with no grounding in basic science? If it isn't I already have quite a backlog of more interesting papers awaiting my attention in due course.

[Dalek Prime]

Mental processes are exclusively physical because they involve energy exchange between particles of matter. In fact large and complex minds, such as those which evolved in homo sapiens, are very expensive things to run in terms of their energy requirements.

That's why they stop working when we're dead.

Did you se the article? It seems to be suggesting that because only parts of the brain, or parts at a particular time can experience things, it requires something outside of physicalism.

Well, it's wrong.