From: tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Date: 7 Sep 92 22:00:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <1992Sep7.181145.29667@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com> max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb) writes:
>In article <1992Sep6.204336.4377@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis) writes:
>>In article <26133@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>>
>>>Do have any doubt that the brain is the seat of your consciousness?  
>...
>>Clearly the physical state of the brain affects consciousness, but that's
>>hardly the same thing. I would be very interested in any evidence that the 
>>mind can be identified as a physical phenomenon, much less "located".

>Well, let's see. There are the corpus callosum severance experiments,
>which appear to indicate that in some cases awareness can be divided
>by a scalpel. If the integration of the field of awareness cannot be
>accomplished without the corpus callosum, then the claim that consciousness
>is somehow independent of the brain becomes difficult to entertain.

The claim that consciousness is independent of the brain is impossible to
seriously maintain. This does not however prove that the structure of the
brain is sufficient to produce consciousness.

An otherwise apalling piece of new age drivel called "The Holotropic Mind"
(I heartily recommend against wasting your time on it) nevertheless makes
an interesting analogy. Images appear on your TV screen, and if your TV is
damaged, the pictures are distorted.  Yet no one claims that the images are
caused by the TV. 

That the brain has some function in transmitting information
to the self is clear. That the answer, if it is found, to the mind-body
problem is somehow centered on the brain is clear. That information processing
can take place in purely physical systems is clear. That sentience can
be reduced to information processing is an assumption. It is a widely held
assumption, but an assumption just the same. Nevertheless, the scientific
community accepts it with the same blind faith that has ever been attached
to the most medieval dogmas.

I am certainly aware that neurophysiological damage affects consciousness
in fascinating ways. I do not see how this proves that consciousness is
an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system. I suppose you are aware
of the "Chinese room" paradox. I find that argument compelling, and take it
a bit further. I do not claim that chemistry or quantum mechanics is 
somehow capable of a different type of information processing than silicon.
I claim that sentience is something entirely distinct from information
processing. I claim that it cannot be defined in a scientifically rigorous
way, and hence its origin "in" the brain cannot be said to be demonstrated.

My suspicion that the phenomenon really has a determinant independent of
physical reality goes against the grain of well-informed contemporary
thinking, I know. My playing "deity's advocate" on the dualism question
is a tentative opinion, but I find the assumption to the contrary quite
disturbing, as the assumption is rarely even mentioned. Dennett, in 
"Brainstorms" at least mentions the dualist hypothesis briefly, but in contrast 
to his usual closely reasoned analysis, dismisses it by saying "I am not
sympathetic to such an approach"! 

mt