An Illusory But Incredibly Well-Timed Forethought?
Posted in Atheism, Logic, Quickies, Science, Skepticism on | 1 minute | 10 Comments →
On the observation that changes in brain matter affect changes in thought, particularly reductionist atheists often claim that thought is a mere by-product of matter, but I find it interesting that proceeding by pure thought alone, I can willfully move my arm right now.
Doesn't it follow, then, that thought — i.e. consciousness — also causes matter to move? Or is the decision to move one's arm merely an illusory but incredibly well-timed forethought that somehow preceded the act? Provided we're not too shameless to deny accept the latter absurdity, doesn't the former observation suggest that perhaps thought is more than the mere by-product of matter?
Lifeguard
says...Thought causes movement? Then why can’t a paralyzed person think themselves into walking?
Thought isn’t the “mere” byproduct of matter? Then why does someone with physical damage to their brain become mentally disabled or an amnesiac? Are their otherwise coonscious, competent thoughts trapped behind damaged hardware? Can anyone confirm that?
The big question here is what is thought? Is thought the by-product of what’s going on in the brain electrically or is what goes on in the brain electrically a byproduct of thought? Sounds like a “chicken or egg” debate to me, but before you just dismiss the argument that consciousness can arise from pure matter at least consider Dennett’s book “Consciousness Explained.”
Can anyone here name a single, non-corporeal thing that thinks or is conscious.
cl
says...Inability of upper motor neurons to convey messages to muscles. Technology exists that allows paralytics and mutes to “trap” these “competent thoughts” which are then applied to external hardware. IOW, paralytics can “think” their way around a room with a wheelchair, and mutes can carry on telephone conversations. Granted, neither paralysis nor inability to speak entail brain damage, and the next step would be achieving similar results in people with brain damage.
I believe the evidence suggests it’s a two-way road.
Have I dismissed that argument? Or simply challenged what I perceive to be an overly rigid conclusion of it? I say the latter, but nonetheless, Dennett’s book sounds interesting. Although, anyone who implies they can explain consciousness immediately raises eyebrows. That’s like saying you know Unix. Anyone who says they know Unix, doesn’t.
Not that an atheist would accept, but I’ve got a few posts in this direction that I’m working on.
Dominic Saltarelli
says...I just lol’d.
Lifeguard
says...Hmmm… is it “lol’d” or “l’d ol”? One of those funny internet things, I guess.
D
says...You’re, like, so friggin’ close! Your “well-timed forethought” is actually not far off from some of the most current research.
It’s not “pure thought alone” that moves your arm, actually. Not even if your brain was freely willed; not even close. When your brain causes “you” to think you have decided to move your arm, your brain also sends electrochemical signals to your muscles causing them to move in the ways you have imagined that you wish to move. Even if you have fundamentally free will, your “you” still needs to get your brain to send those signals, or nothing happens.
However, all of the research that has been directed to finding the relationship between “brain” and “mind” has found that the latter is entirely dependent upon the former. Your mind does not cause your brain to do anything; mind is what the brain does. But don’t take my word for it – if you live by a college, you should audit some neuroscience courses. It is truly fascinating stuff!
D
says...You’re, like, so friggin’ close! Your “well-timed forethought” is actually not far off from some of the most current research.
It’s not “pure thought alone” that moves your arm, actually. Not even if your brain was freely willed; not even close. When your brain causes “you” to think you have decided to move your arm, your brain also sends electrochemical signals to your muscles causing them to move in the ways you have imagined that you wish to move. Even if you have fundamentally free will, your “you” still needs to get your brain to send those signals, or nothing happens.
However, all of the research that has been directed to finding the relationship between “brain” and “mind” has found that the latter is entirely dependent upon the former. Your mind does not cause your brain to do anything; mind is what the brain does. But don’t take my word for it – if you live by a college, you should audit some neuroscience courses. It is truly fascinating stuff!
cl
says...Trust me, I won’t. You assume the premise you need to prove, 5th sentence.
All-inclusive qualifiers always raise red flags for me (if you don’t mind that obvious irony). Seriously though, I should ask exactly what you mean by “entirely dependent” before I pass any judgment on this claim.
I will say, thanks for the link to a most interesting article:
Yeah right! The ones who should really be unsettled are the lawyers. By chance, do you know if any defense attorneys have successfully used Haynes’ research to get somebody off the hook? I’m only being about 50% sarcastic there; I’d really like to know.
D
says...I’m not assuming the premise I need to prove; I’m saying that the evidence gathered is that subconscious brain state A consistently precedes conscious brain state B (which we think is “our own creation” without being aware of A). So by the time you think you’ve decided something, from what we can see it looks like your brain has already done the heavy lifting out of sight of your “I.” This is not some a priori premise, this is where the evidence points.
As for “entirely dependent,” show me a mind without a brain. I’m not trying to be flippant here: I am aware of precisely zero minds which do not proceed from brains. If you can show me one, I would love to check it out and interact with it! (Preferably in my house, a museum, a zoo, or a lab.) And as for my statement about the research, allow me to clarify that there are also conscious states that proceed from and/or are influenced by the gastroenteric and spinal nervous systems (it’s, like, way complicated). So while you might be able to get away from “brains per se,” there’s been no getting away from some manner of matter-based nervous structure in any of the scientific literature (of which I am aware, anyway – and if you are aware of such, then I would genuinely love to read about it for 101 Interesting Things!).
As for your final question, what on Earth did you think the insanity plea has ever been about? :) All such shenanigans are nothing more than the attempt to absolve personal responsibility by pointing at brute causality and whining – it’s a modern-day “The Devil Made Me Do It.”
Zeta
says...If I’m reading you correctly, you’re arguing that consciousness, or at least some contents of conscious awareness, cannot be both affected by matter and entirely inaffective towards matter. In other words, epiphenomenalism, “the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). I think your argument is invalid, that is if you even intended for this to be cogent/valid/sound at all rather than simply rhetorical or curious. It could simply be argued that the feeling of intention as well as the neurological encoding of intention happen before the event occurs, and the consciousness of intention is still an effect of the physical events in the brain. Under this explanation, all things remain constant and consciousness is still considerable as “causally inert,” if there is such a thing as causality.
I propose a much more straight and direct line against epiphenomenalism. If the contents of consciousness are indeed separate and absolutely exclusive to the physical realm, how is it that we so easily fill up physical reality with sound waves, ink on paper, and pixels on screens, which all represent objects in this utterly detached dimension of the mind? How do dictionaries – physical objects – have the word “consciousness” in them? How do servers have magnetic archives which detail our theories of “epiphenomenalism,” and plainly discuss that which should have zero appearance or effect in the universe of matter and energy?
My $0.02
Zeta
says...If I’m reading you correctly, you’re arguing that consciousness, or at least some contents of conscious awareness, cannot be both affected by matter and entirely inaffective towards matter. In other words, epiphenomenalism, “the view that mental events are caused by physical events in the brain, but have no effects upon any physical events” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). I think your argument is invalid, that is if you even intended for this to be cogent/valid/sound at all rather than simply rhetorical or curious. It could simply be argued that the feeling of intention as well as the neurological encoding of intention happen before the event occurs, and the consciousness of intention is still an effect of the physical events in the brain. Under this explanation, all things remain constant and consciousness is still considerable as “causally inert,” if there is such a thing as causality.
I propose a much more straight and direct line against epiphenomenalism. If the contents of consciousness are indeed separate and absolutely exclusive to the physical realm, how is it that we so easily fill up physical reality with sound waves, ink on paper, and pixels on screens, which all represent objects in this utterly detached dimension of the mind? How do dictionaries – physical objects – have the word “consciousness” in them? How do servers have magnetic archives which detail our theories of “epiphenomenalism,” and plainly discuss that which should have zero appearance or effect in the universe of matter and energy?
My $0.02