Bat's weird questions

Well, we might differ here. The Art of Fugue is either dots on paper or sounds - that is the material basis for the work. But it is much more. It is the understanding of how to read a score, of counterpoint rules, of harmonic resolution, and of the need to complete a problem that was started.

So the Art of Fugue exists chiefly in the brains of those that understand it: it is a mental construction that the mere dots cannot make clear.

 

I will accept that the understanding of the concept exists in the minds of individuals, but in no wise do I accept that it exists in some shadowy "parallel universe".

In my opinion, when a person dies, his thoughts cease to exist. Death is the opposite of life. Non-existence.

 

I feel like a car driver. I drive always the same car. I have to. It is getting old and the doors are jammed.

You tell me that I AM my car but I find you crazy.

I know that one day my car finally breaks down and cannot be repaired any more. Then the doors will suddenly open and I will get out.

I shall not miss my car which has kept me trapped a lifetime.

 

Did you read the Lancet article about a frenchman with virtually absent brain (please no jokes)? Yet he leads a normal life.

CT and MRI brain scans are rare.

Therefore it is statistically certain that there are many otherwise normal men and women out there with even less brains or no brain at all.

They lead normal lives and have never had a brain scan and never will, so nobody will find out.

This proves that mind doesn't need a brain to function, mind doesn't need a body to function and it certainly survives death.

 

This looks funny. You say you are a confessed materialist. In the same breath you say that the AoF is "much more" than matter and you talk about "a mental construction".

In Popper's terminology, first you say there is only World 1 but then you say that the AoF actually belongs to World 2, which doesn't in fact exist, according to you. Huh?

 

Extremely clear, thank you. I fully understand what you feel.

I am a materialist, but I do not deny the existence of mind. In fact, that's the only thing I know for certain that exists: I am aware of things; I may be mistaken about what I am aware of, but NEVER of the fact that I AM aware. This is Descartes's main point, of course.

I firmly believe there is what Theillard de Chardin called the noosphere, which is, I believe, akin to Poper's world 3, the existence of which I did not dispute.

In fact, our species (I am a comparative zoologist) live almost only in the representation of things. There is a lot of work that shows that we do not see things by themselves, but what we expect to find in them. For instance, π may be a table or a pi character, depending on what you are told. And if, after being told what it is, you are asked to reproduce what you saw, the drawings will be different: you will approach the drawing towards a table or towards a pi sign, thinking that you are reproducing what you actually SAW, and not what you were told it was.

So, behaviorist psychology notwithstanding, we do live in a mental space.

My belief is that this mental space stems from brain activity. The Lancet paper you quoted shows that the fellow had a small brain and that he was functional, but also that he was mentally impaired (an IQ of 70 is VERY low, believe me). And, anyway, we don't understand hor the brain works. Perhaps his forebrain was not that impaired, his verbal fluency was probably OK (there is an illness in which people are completely fluent but can only articulate idiocies; it is called Williams's syndrome, if I recall correctly).

But there is a vast amount of data that conclusively show that the mind is affected by lesions to the brain.

In conclusion: I do not dispute the feeling that there is mind which is different from matter. I have the same feeling, and I believe that one almost always has that feeling (a PhD student of mine is working on that right now); this is particularly obvious when we listen to music (when we play it can be different, much more like when you drive a fast car: you definitely feel your body). But I think that feeling stems from the workings of the brain.

Therefore, I am a materialist who believes in mind.

I hope I have explained myself clearly.

Many thanks, Bat, for having raised this question and for having answered so honestly.

 

I must confess to being somewhat bemused by the 'logic' of these statements. The use of the word "proves" in these comments is completely inappropriate.
No way does the one case of the Frenchman make it 'certain' that there are normal men and women with no brain at all. Your argument that 'no one will find out', so they must exist is illogical.

I do have questions, however.

1. I assume from your statements that you believe in some sort of special creation and not in evolution. Am I correct in this assumption?

2. Do these 'disembodied minds' pre-exist the birth of the individual?

3. Are you implying some re-incarnation idea?

 

OK, "proves" should be replaced with "makes extremely likely".
Because the guy was leading a normal life before he happened to have the scan which revealed that his brain is "virtually absent". His head is full of fluid. Perhaps he's no rocket scientist but he's working and doing just fine.

The Frenchman was probably more or less in the middle of the Gauss bell curve. Therefore some otherwise as normal people probably exist with much less brain. Much less brain than "virtually no brain" means "no brain at all". Elementary, dear Watson.

Answers:
1. No.
2. Yes.
3. Yes and no.

 

I still find your extrapolations extremely tenuous and unconvincing.

From your answers to my questions, for which I thank you, (I really am trying to understand where you are coming from):

1. Do animals also have minds which survive their deaths?
2. What, in your view, is the source of these minds?
3. Yes and No. Re-incarnation or not? Can you please explain?

 

It should be evident, that consciousness - or mind, if you want (to imagine a mind without consciousnes is senseless), is a function of chemical processes in the brain. When these processes are slowed down to a certain level, consciousness is lost. Everybody, who has had general anestesia, knows this.

Different components of our memory are physically located in different areas of the brain. Human beings with different kind of brain damage may develop elective memory-loss depending on the affected area of the brain, and in the worst case all the memory of an individual may be lost. And what is memory-loss about other than loss of mind? A mind without memory is a mind without identity, - you can say, that it doesn't exist, even if the lower functions of the brain are still working.

It is natural to conclude, that all the memory (and/or mind) is lost, when the brain completely ceases functioning at death.

 

Consciousness isn't a function of chemical processes in the brain.

Anesthetics do NOT work by slowing down chemical processes.

How they work has been a mystery to science over 150 years!

I suspect that memory is located outside the brain, not inside.

 

How do you explain the psychological effect of some drugs? e.g. LSD?

Well, but this is surely the only possible way of action, and is confirmed by the fact, that cooling the body down has got the same effect, and has been used for this purpose (anestesia) too.

And where, precisely, is it located??

 

Why don't we all drop this thread and put some good music on the turntable. That will help to silence the materialist in us.

The materialist in us is a snake oil salesman, selling snake oil if materialism.

Materialism offers simple answers to complex problems, which is always very suspicious. World is complex. Boycott the snake oil!

 

Bat, yes for once you are right, but why did you launch this thread, when you don't want your questions to be discussed?

 

OK, if you insist. I just got the feeling that this thread is in a dead end.

Brain could be like a TV receiver/transmitter. Of course you can distort the program by pouring chemicals into the TV set, but the program itself has nothing to do with chemical processes.

When Bach composed the AoF, it was a process of receiving the divine inspiration from the spirit world, processing it and transmitting the end product back to spirit world (and on paper too). That is why even the lost works survive and may be studied and enjoyed in the spirit world.

If you can prove that anesthetics work the way you suggested, you can except next year's Nobel price in medicine.

To some extent I like Popper's 3 world model. Memory is not a World 1 thing - it is not chemicals. Brain is a World 1 thing.
Memory and brain belong to different worlds. That's why scientists do not know how memory works.

 

As you have decided to continue the thread, bat, I hope you will answer my queries above.

Materialism does offer simple answers, but at least it offers answers. I find that a spiritualistic approach tends to raise more questions than answers.

(BTW I am not an out-and-out materialist, I do believe in a spirit world; but I believe in reason too, not blind faith. I am trying to see clearly what you are thinking, and hopefully raising questions which help us analyze these thoughts.)

 

1. Yes.
2. Source of which minds? Please elaborate the question.
3. There is reincarnation until it is no longer necessary for the soul's development. I see reincarnation as the raison d'etre for the material world.

 

I think Bat is located in world four. We can reach out for him, but we can't reach him.

 

Bat, you convey an idea of disembodied "minds" which inhabit human (and animal) bodies in some form of reincarnation cycle. I was asking where, in your theory, these "minds" came from originally?

Have they always existed? (in which case, why the need for them to be incarnated in bodies of flesh which have not always existed?)

How do they 'develop'? (You speak of the soul's development.)

Do animal 'minds' also take part in a reincarnation cycle? What about insects, viruses, bacteria? At what level of development do they become sentient and able to take part in this cycle?


I am only asking questions which your replies have triggered in my mind.

 

Human and animal souls were created. They have not always existed.
We incarnate to learn, grow and evolve.
Life is a school. Our souls develop by repeatedly attending that school.
Animals, insects, etc. reincarnate but I doubt that they evolve into other animals or human beings, although some say that they do.