Thread: Philosophies of the Mind

I'm not sure I'm completely following you.
To me, the brain is just an organ like all the others but therein also lies the essence of WHO and WHY I am. It's like a computer that houses all the vital information about me.
Even though I'm a Christian (though currently not practicing), I don't believe in the soul.

But now that I'm thinking about this, it is curious to me all the different ideas regarding the brain and the symbology associated with it.
Though not related to this subject, in the Old Testament, I've read 'place your hand under my thigh and swear' which now makes me think about people placing a hand over their heart to show senserity.

I'm very interested to see what others may write.

Originally Posted by Zhaylin

I'm not sure I'm completely following you.
To me, the brain is just an organ like all the others but therein also lies the essence of WHO and WHY I am. It's like a computer that houses all the vital information about me.
Even though I'm a Christian (though currently not practicing), I don't believe in the soul.

But now that I'm thinking about this, it is curious to me all the different ideas regarding the brain and the symbology associated with it.
Though not related to this subject, in the Old Testament, I've read 'place your hand under my thigh and swear' which now makes me think about people placing a hand over their heart to show senserity.

Hehe, sorry if it wasn't too clear. Basically, I'm just interested to see what people think of the mind, what they do with it, and who influenced them. Some people don't ever think of their minds, while others spend entire days training it. There are great philosophers such as Plato and Socrates who have spent their entire lives thinking thoroughly about the mind.

Thanks for your input by the way. So what do you think the hand over the heart symbolizes?

Senserity, a promise, a sign of affection.... or anxiety, great distress, a heart attack (depending on the emotions and events involved in the gesture).

Was my view of the brain on the right track in answering your question?
While I value my brain lol I utilize the intuitive side more than the raw intellect area. I'm horrendous with facts and figures but my insight into the workings of other people and my "gut instinct" are rarely wrong.
I learned that skill subconsciously as a means of emotional survival while growing up in a somewhat chaotic home.
For the most part, I operate on autopilot. I am unmotivated and undisciplined in way too many areas of life. I wish I had the fortitude of men like Plato and Socrates toward very deep thinking and pure genuis, but my thoughts remain mostly untamed and chaotic.
I am intrigued by the mind though... but more regarding the intuitive aspects and not so much the hormonal/chemical/exactly-how-the-brain-works part. Such is way beyond my intellectual capabilities and interest lol.
I tried studying about how tryptophan and such interact with the brain and the exact nature of the adrenal glands in relation to our brain... but it was like trying to teach a 5 year old kid exactly how the atom bomb works. Everything I read was lost moments later.
So, I guess I was incorrect in saying I have little to no interest in such. I have a lot of interest. I just don't have the capacity to comprehend or intellectually communicate the exact nature of the things I read.

My idea of my mind on a philosophical level is that of physical reductionism. I think my 'mind' is physical, and that all aspects of my mind can be explained (eventually) on the physical level.

This is influenced by studying a lot of philosophy of mind at university, including Baars, Chalmers, Fodor, Dennet. One of my main reasons for being a reductionist is the philosophical argument against physical non-reductionism as put forward by Jaegwon Kim. It does raise a lot of problems, but it solves many more.

On a personal level, though, I value my mind very highly. I guess that kind of sounds a little simple, but I guess my philosophical views have resulted in me feeling a strong sense of awe and wonder at the mind.
I view knowledge and creativity to be hugely important, and I continually strive to learn new things every day. I love the way that studying something entirely new shapes the way you percieve the world. I love the feeling I get when I'm creative.
I'm pretty sure I'm mildly bipolar, I'm obsessive compulsive, and I'm also prone to panic attacks. I'm fascinated with the way the brain operates when these things are happening. I try to observe myself as much as I can when these things happen. Along with my love for knowledge, I've developed a hunger for self-knowledge (in the most non new-age way possible ). I spend a lot of time studying, so I've spent a lot of time studying and working out how best to study. Strange, but it keeps me engaged with the world.

I'm not sure about the mind. Philosophy of the mind is an endless field of Philosophy. People tend to want to believe in a soul or something immaterial that makes us who we are.

However, is talk of the soul just because of our lack of knowledge of how the brain actually works? One day, will science be able to explain in a physical term what makes us who we are?

Dualism is a theory that says we have both a physical and a mental existence; that we are made up of both. Physical being our bodies and obviously mental being our 'mind'. The problem with believing this would be that there's trouble explaining how the immaterial, non-physical mind is one with (or impacts on) a wholey physical and material body.


If you believe that the mind is just the brain, and that the mind is not external to the brain and will one day be explained in physical terms then this is a physicalist theory.
The problem with that is as soon as you believe that the mind is the brain, you have to agree that when the brain dies, so does everything that you are and were. Basically this makes any concept of life after death completely contradictory to that belief. There simply cannot logically be a life after death if we are completely physical beings.
Another problem is that it completely destroys all freewill. If you believe we are physical beings then we cannot have freewill. In the physical world, things follow a cause and effect trend. If a person throws a brick at a window, the window will break. There is no random acts. All physical objects follow the laws of physics. Therefore, as we are made up of lots of little individual Physical molecules, that all adds up to follow a trend. Neurons firing in the brain cause the feeling of anger which causes an act like throwing that brick at a window.
This is called Determinism (which is very obvious, and this is probably patronising, so i apologise). This then goes on to make concepts like Morality or the sense of a person completely nonsensical. If we have no freewill, then ultimately we cannot choose to act moral, so therefore there's no such thing as morality. Also, if we have no freewill, then what is a person? They must simply be a biological robot. Just a walking chemical reaction and therefore any sense of self is fake, right?

Physicalist theories are a slippery slope to these counter-intuitive and depressing conclusions.


If you read this, thanks. If you're into Philosophy, then i'd love it if you message me.

I disagree completely that determinism implies a lack of free will and hence amorality.

It is true that every choice we make, we were always going to make. However, it is still a choice.

A way I often try to explain it is this: okay, you were always going to choose to kill that person. But then another person was always going to think about this and conclude that it is immoral, and was always going to make a law forbidding murder. Hence, you were always going to be punished by being sent to prison.

The above shows how I believe that determinism does not preclude the existence of a moral code.

My thoughts on the mind are an interesting juxtaposition of reductionism and holism. On one hand, I believe that you can reduce a brain down into a pure mathematical network and that this is the essence of consciousness; any physical embodiment of this system (e.g. the population of China) would cause consciousness. This is the element of reductionism and I believe it because there is clearly nothing inherently conscious about biological molecules. However, there is also an inherent element of holism, because a neuron is actually a collection of pieces, which, when reducing consciousness to a neural network, is treated as a whole. There is also holism regarding individual nodes in the network forming a whole.

I find this holism an extremely mysterious thing.

It is true that every choice we make, we were always going to make. However, it is still a choice.

It's a choice in respects. I think the concept of choice relies on the intuitive belief that we have freewill. If you go along the lines of determinism, then we simply have no ability to choose freely. Therefore, there simply cannot be choice because choice is assumed to be free.
If you can call an involentery action a choice, then yes it's still a choice.

A way I often try to explain it is this: okay, you were always going to choose to kill that person. But then another person was always going to think about this and conclude that it is immoral, and was always going to make a law forbidding murder. Hence, you were always going to be punished by being sent to prison.

I get what you're saying, but imagine you were going to kill that person, no matter what. It was set in stone, so to speak. If this were the case then how can you be responsible for that action? It makes no sense. If we're not in control, we can't be blamed for anything we do. Indeed, someone may say that the act was immoral but if we have no free choice, can there be any morality? Acting morally or immorally is something we have to freely choose to do. If we have no ability to freely choose then we have no morality.

It's a choice in respects. I think the concept of choice relies on the intuitive belief that we have freewill. If you go along the lines of determinism, then we simply have no ability to choose freely. Therefore, there simply cannot be choice because choice is assumed to be free.
If you can call an involentery action a choice, then yes it's still a choice.

But it's not involuntary; it's just that you were always going to 'volunteer' to do it.

I get what you're saying, but imagine you were going to kill that person, no matter what. It was set in stone, so to speak. If this were the case then how can you be responsible for that action? It makes no sense. If we're not in control, we can't be blamed for anything we do. Indeed, someone may say that the act was immoral but if we have no free choice, can there be any morality? Acting morally or immorally is something we have to freely choose to do. If we have no ability to freely choose then we have no morality.

I'm not adding much to what I said to the first bit of your post, but: we are in control. We performed the action of weighing up the consequences and making a decision; i.e. 'control'. Yes, the outcome was always going to be the same, but still, we did perform that crucial action.

And I would add that this is something we all know inherently. We have all made decisions before and know that we do indeed 'make' them, in the full meaning of the word.

But it's not involuntary; it's just that you were always going to 'volunteer' to do it.

Ah i see. Well what if, simply, that feeling we have that we are in control is an illusory feeling?

So you're more along the lines that freewill is desiring what we do rather than doing what we desire?