Thinking it through carefully, the idea doesn’t even make sense:
It turns out that even a committed materialist like neuroscientist Steven Novella doesn’t really believe that.
A good place to begin is with Dr. Novella’s seemingly quite sensible assertion that “the mind is what the brain does.” This seems to be a version of a theory called functionalism. Dr. Novella is a bit imprecise about his own metaphysics but functionalism is the philosophical view that what makes a thing mental (rather than physical) depends only on its function, rather than on its matter. A thought is a thought because it does what thoughts do, regardless of the material substrate that gave rise to it.
This account, of course, gets the materialist off the hook. Materialists like Novella can explain (away) the causal gap between brains and thoughts by saying “Thoughts are what brains do” and leave it at that. It’s a “materialism of the gaps” argument.
There are problems with functionalism as an explanation of the mind. The most obvious problem is that functionalism, as understood in this way, is dualist. That is, Novella is invoking “what the brain is” and “what the brain does.” Even if his claims for functionalism are true, those are two different things.
Michael Egnor, “Why the mind can’t just be the brain” at Mind Matters News
ou may also enjoy:
Interview with a woman (or women) formerly called Susan Blackmore A professor of psychology argues that there is no continuity between our present selves and our past selves.
My right hemisphere is an atheist! No, wait… In reality, split-brain surgery does not split consciousness in any meaningful sense.
and
No free will means no justice. Materialist biologist Jerry Coyne doesn’t seem to understand what denying free will would mean for the criminal justice system.
Novell says some pretty remarkably stupid crap to refute dualism
Raymond Talus actually does a really good job dismantling Novell in an earlier work that he did
Novell seems to believe in millions of tiny hemoculi running the show, so I’m not sure his problem with brain fairies
As to,
In regards to Novella’s claim that ‘the mind is what the brain does’, it is interesting to note exactly what the brain is doing as it is supposedly ‘doing the mind’.
While the resting metabolism of the body is based on Quarter Power Scaling,,,
And while Natural Selection cannot possibly be the explanation for Quarter Power Scaling since natural selection supposedly selects, or rejects, the whole organism based on 3-Dimensional phenotypic concerns
And while Natural Selection cannot possibly be the explanation for the Quarter Power Scaling of the body, the brain, in and of itself, exasperates this insurmountable ‘4-Dimensional’ problem for Darwinists. As the following article states, “cerebral metabolic, hemodynamic, and microvascular variables scale with allometric exponents that are simple multiples of 1/6, rather than 1/4, which suggests that brain metabolism is more similar to the metabolism of aerobic than resting body.”
The brain simply does not fluctuate in its base line metabolic activity,
The preceding finding is very unexpected for Darwinian materialists since materialists hold that ‘mind’ is merely a ’emergent property’ of the physical processes of a material brain. i.e. “The mind is what the brain does’.
But why should ‘thought’ which is presupposed to be result of, and subservient to, the material processes of the brain constrain the material brain to operate at such a constant and optimal metabolic rate whereas the rest of body fluctuates in its metabolic activity according to our activity?
The most parsimonious explanation for such a optimal, ‘6 Dimensional’, constraint on the brain’s metabolic activity is that the material brain was designed, first and foremost, to house the immaterial mind and to give the immaterial mind the most favorable metabolic environment at all times.
Also of note, Darwinists can’t even explain where a single neuron came from,
,,, much less can Darwinists explain where the ‘beyond belief’ brain came from,,,
Verse:
Is Mr. Novella a scientist, or is he a philosopher?
Was not science “the only begetter of truth” and philosophy “dead/ a waste of time”?
Why is Mr. Novella wasting his time then? Is he a robot that can not help it?
Have I ever mentioned the strong correlation between materialism and non-sense? 🙂
Oh, and fairies. Materialists and the word “fairy” are inextricably linked. Something to ponder about.
Truthfreedom: Is Mr. Novella a scientist, or is he a philosopher?
He’s an extremely public figure and easy to look up. I’ll leave it up to you if you’re really interested.
Why is Mr. Novella wasting his time then? Is he a robot that can not help it?
You can subscribe and read his blog if you’re really interested in his view.
Oh, and fairies. Materialists and the word “fairy” are inextricably linked. Something to ponder about.
Nice to see you haven’t lost your subtle and compassionate approach.
So Mr. Novella is a scientist who auto-perceives himself as a philosopher. A travesty then. A mockery. Like same sex
“marriage”. Like “vegan steak”. How “woke” of him.
JVL: is being “compassionate” something “good”? Should I strive to that end? (Remember that materialism and universal moral truths are sworn enemies).
Popcorn in the oven. *Crunch *crunch.
Unfortunately, dualism suffers the exact same problem. Either matter (the brain) can cause mental states, or it cannot. Arguing that mind exists independent of the physical brain doesn’t let you off that hook.
Ultimately, dualism is an unsupportable ontological framework, since no experience can occur outside of mind. Consequently, not only is there no good reason to postulate that an extra-mental world exists, because even if one did it would be both impossible to verify and useless.
After considering BA77’s point that ERT was very useful, I’ve realized that no, it wasn’t. In fact, logically speaking, it couldn’t have been. That perspective is a categorical misrepresentation of what was going on.
As a functional fact, all we can ever investigate and make theories about are our experiences, which occur entirely in mind. That historical investigation and theory-making could never have been, functionally and factually speaking, about anything else regardless of how we characterized it in our mind. That erroneous perspective could only have retarded progress by insisting that we were investigating something other than the only kind of thing we can ever have any access to – mental experiences.
Materialism and dualism are necessarily insupportable and problematic perspectives that cannot possibly bring any additional functional value to the table, in the same way that materialist evolutionary theory cannot bring anything functionally additional to the examination of life; it can only add problems, dysfunction and unnecessary limitations.