The Mind - Brain relationship

[granadina]

Just as you can conveniently live your life without using words like God and Soul ..

Can't you do away with the word ' Mind ' ?

 

Won't you be better off without treating the word as a sort of ' Entity ' .

 

May be the same holds true for the word Love .

Do you really know what you mean when you say - ' fall in love ' ?

 

The less the vagueness , more the clarity ..

[DrRocket]

Are you out of your mind ?

[granadina]

Are you out of your mind ?

 

 

 

Suits me fine .

[PhDwannabe]

The less the vagueness , more the clarity ..

 

I couldn't agree more.

[granadina]

What is ' mind ' supposed to mean - Thoughts , Emotions , Memories ..

 

And have these not been rooted to the Nervous System ?

 

 

( Only it doesn't help you point at a source , but renders the question beyond grasp . )

[Realitycheck]

The stuff I've been reading lately lends to the idea that there is a part of the brain which helps you imagine things. You dream up an idea, focus on it for a little while, and a specific part of the brain lights up with activity (not really sure which part that would be.) In fact, I read about a recent study where they were able to draw extremely vague facsmiles of the pictures that people were imagining. How would that be represented in your brain? Maybe if you considered each brain cell in a certain part of the brain as a pixel, and the coordinated effort between the cells as an image, then you might be able to better envision your neural image, though it would have to be rendered custom-made just for your brain as you grew up dreaming things, as opposed to the way a monitor renders images that you see. So basically, when you imagine falling in love with someone, there really isn't any credibility to it unless there is some correlating interaction with an actual person.

[granadina]

The stuff I've been reading lately lends to the idea that there is a part of the brain which helps you imagine things. You dream up an idea, focus on it for a little while, and a specific part of the brain lights up with activity (not really sure which part that would be.) In fact, I read about a recent study where they were able to draw extremely vague facsmiles of the pictures that people were imagining. How would that be represented in your brain? Maybe if you considered each brain cell in a certain part of the brain as a pixel, and the coordinated effort between the cells as an image, then you might be able to better envision your neural image, though it would have to be rendered custom-made just for your brain as you grew up dreaming things, as opposed to the way a monitor renders images that you see. So basically, when you imagine falling in love with someone, there really isn't any credibility to it unless there is some correlating interaction with an actual person.

 

That was worth reading .

 

Amounts to self - deception , wouldn't you say ; when you depend on words not knowing what they mean .. Consciousness included .

 

Isn't it wrong to ask - ' What is Consciousness ' when the term conveys a ' process ' in the brain , that cannot be encapsulated in a word !

[Dekan]

That was worth reading .

 

Amounts to self - deception , wouldn't you say ; when you depend on words not knowing what they mean .. Consciousness included .

 

Isn't it wrong to ask - ' What is Consciousness ' when the term conveys a ' process ' in the brain , that cannot be encapsulated in a word !

 

Granadina penetrates to the core. Words in English are too facile, and easily created, particularly when of an abstract nature, involving the suffix "-ness".

 

We create a word. Then assume that this word must represent a real "thing", which actually exists in the real world.

 

Sometimes it does - if we ask: What is an American? Everyone knows the answer. A US citizen. It's clear, and encapsulated by the word. Short, sweet, case closed.

 

However, isn't it wrong to ask - what is "Americaness"? Because is any definite answer possible?

[granadina]

We create a word. Then assume that this word must represent a real "thing", which actually exists in the real world.

 

Thanks .

It's called ' Pruning ' I guess .

Getting rid of the superfluous to maintain a better shape .

 

 

[DrmDoc]

What is ' mind ' supposed to mean - Thoughts , Emotions , Memories ..

 

 

Mind is the environment of cognitive activity with the brain that arises from brain function and is quantified by a capacity to integrate divergent sensory information (tactile, visual, olfactory, aural, etc.) throught a process that produces behaviors independent of instinct. Essentially, a mind is evinced by proactive rather than reactive behaviors.

Edited November 8, 2011 by DrmDoc

[StringJunky]

Mind is the environment of cognitive activity with the brain that arises from brain function and is quantified by a capacity to integrate divergent sensory information (tactile, visual, olfactory, aural, etc.) throught a process that produces behaviors independent of instinct. Essentially, a mind is evinced by proactive rather than reactive behaviors.

 

Is self-consciousness a necessary pre-requisite of having a mind do you think? Is it this cognitive property of being able to objectively visualise one's position in space from an outside vantage point that allows proactive behaviours? By 'proactive' I am assuming you mean it is the decisive ability to act counter to one's instinct if circumstances demand it or some other reason. even just simple choice from a range of presented options.

Edited November 8, 2011 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

[/b]

 

Is self-consciousness a necessary pre-requisite of having a mind do you think? Is it this cognitive property of being able to objectively visualise one's position in space from an outside vantage point that allows proactive behaviours? By 'proactive' I am assuming you mean it is the decisive ability to act counter to one's instinct if circumstances demand it or some other reason. even just simple choice from a range of presented options.

 

Self-consciousness necessitates behaviors that suggest an awareness of a distincition between self and surrounding influence. Proactive behaviors necessitates a capacity to assess and anticipate consequence. This is evidence of anticipatory mentation prior to behavioral responses suggestive of reactions without such assessments. A mind is shown by reactions to stimuli that isn't typical of the instinctual response to such stimuli. For example, flight in response to any and all sudden loud noise suggests an instinctual response. However, calm amid some sudden and loud noise suggest a distinction process assessing a non-threat. This is an assessment of the consequences of not reacting to loud noises.

[StringJunky]

Self-consciousness necessitates behaviors that suggest an awareness of a distincition between self and surrounding influence. Proactive behaviors necessitates a capacity to assess and anticipate consequence. This is evidence of anticipatory mentation prior to behavioral responses suggestive of reactions without such assessments. A mind is shown by reactions to stimuli that isn't typical of the instinctual response to such stimuli. For example, flight in response to any and all sudden loud noise suggests an instinctual response. However, calm amid some sudden and loud noise suggest a distinction process assessing a non-threat. This is an assessment of the consequences of not reacting to loud noises.

 

Does conditioning cloud the distinction that you make? For instance, police-horses are routinely trained by repeated exposure to be physically non-reactive to sudden noises hence they are not necessarily making a premeditated decision not to run away, so, it could be argued they still don't meet the criteria for having a mind...they've been behaviourally reprogrammed. Does a horse have a mind or is it just a passive entity that instinctively responds to internal and external stimuli? I suppose trying to define 'mind' is like trying to define 'life'...it's not a single property or criterion that defines it but several.

 

What would be the minimum required parameters for something to be said to have a mind?

[DrmDoc]

Does conditioning cloud the distinction that you make? For instance, police-horses are routinely trained by repeated exposure to be physically non-reactive to sudden noises hence they are not necessarily making a premeditated decision not to run away, so, it could be argued they still don't meet the criteria for having a mind...they've been behaviourally reprogrammed. Does a horse have a mind or is it just a passive entity that instinctively responds to internal and external stimuli? I suppose trying to define 'mind' is like trying to define 'life'...it's not a single property or criterion that defines it but several.

 

What would be the minimum required parameters for something to be said to have a mind?

 

An animal that responds to conditioning suggest a capacity to learn from and remember prior experiences, which suggests a mentation process. At minimum, the animal must demonstrate some mentation process that produce behaviors that appear to override the basal instincts of the animal. My investigation of brain function relative to the mediation of behavioral responses suggests that the integrations of divergent sensory data may initiate those mentation processes that produce behaviors independent of instinct. For example, a totally tactile entity might initially respond to all tactile sensory with similar behaviors. When we add visual sensory data to the entity's abilities, it now has a capacity to make a visual distinction in how it should respond to distinctly different tactile stimuli. An over simplification? Perhaps; however, the contiguous functional nature of our central nervous system--from spinal cord (primitive) to more complex neural structures (recent)--suggests significant developments in human brain structure likely began with the evolution or acquisition of sight.

[PhDwannabe]

An animal that responds to conditioning suggest a capacity to learn from and remember prior experiences, which suggests a mentation process.

Could you clarify what you mean by "mentation," exactly? It seems like you're talking about thought, in some sense. One of the hallmarks of behavioral theory is that it does a relatively lovely job of explaining behavior without the need for thought (or a "mind") of any kind. Indeed, a big part of the point is sort of that conditioning is a process mechanistically well-defined enough that it does not necessarily imply or necessitate a mind. But what you're saying might be subtle, so I'm interested to hear what you mean here.

[DrmDoc]

Could you clarify what you mean by "mentation," exactly? It seems like you're talking about thought, in some sense. One of the hallmarks of behavioral theory is that it does a relatively lovely job of explaining behavior without the need for thought (or a "mind") of any kind. Indeed, a big part of the point is sort of that conditioning is a process mechanistically well-defined enough that it does not necessarily imply or necessitate a mind. But what you're saying might be subtle, so I'm interested to hear what you mean here.

Given the police-horse analogy, my position is that some mentation process had to occur initially before the animal's acquired behavior. If a behavioral response isn't instinctive, then it is a learned response. Whether by conditioning, practice, or some other instructional form, learned behavioral responses begin with some initial period of sensory recognition, distinction, and memorization congruient with mentation. Rudimentary mentation, in my view, is merely the integration of divergent sensory information to mediate a behavioral response. This is like reacting one way to a loud noise (e.g., firecracker) while blindfold and reacting differently when the source of that noise (e.g., person standing in room) can be seen before it occurs again. This integration of sound with the added visual information that results in a modified behavioral response suggest the rudiments of thought. With conditioned police-horses, the animal learns that it needed panick amid loud noises and crowds.

Edited November 14, 2011 by DrmDoc

[DrmDoc]

Hello SJ,

 

Please note that I do not engage in the point/reputation option on this board. Should you find your comments rated amid our discussions or exchanges, they were not rated by me. Also, I do not believe any ratings in this discussion thread was posted by you. That option, as I have learned, is a popularity game that the adolescents on this discussion board anonymously play to pit one poster against another to, likely, soothe some unhealthy esteem or ego related issue. Should I agree or disagree with your posts, my commentary will only appear in writing. Your written words, rather than reputation points, are the only statement of your insight and opinion that is of any substantive value to me. I wish you well.

Edited November 15, 2011 by DrmDoc

[granadina]

Mind is the environment of cognitive activity with the brain that arises from brain function and is quantified by a capacity to integrate divergent sensory information (tactile, visual, olfactory, aural, etc.) through a process that produces behaviors independent of instinct. Essentially, a mind is evinced by proactive rather than reactive behaviors.

 

 

 

Few questions -

 

1. What actually becomes ' known ' in this environment of cognitive activity , is the visible change in behaviour ; which gets quantified through experiments devised by man again .

In the situation , can't it be said that ' Statistical results are over emphasized ?

( Where is the objectivity in all this . )

 

2. How can you deduce that the ' process produces behaviours independent of instinct ' ?

Can one ever ' extricate ' behaviour from instinct ; which is but a tip of the iceberg , the bulk of which remains unseen ?

 

3. What aspect of ' Proactive behaviour ' is impossible to explain in terms of Stimulus and Response ?

Edited November 15, 2011 by granadina

[DrmDoc]

Few questions -

 

1. What actually becomes ' known ' in this environment of cognitive activity , is the visible change in behaviour ; which gets quantified through experiments devised by man again .

In the situation , can't it be said that ' Statistical results are over emphasized ?

( Where is the objectivity in all this . )

If I understand correctly, the question is can humans devise objective experiments or render objective observations? Generally, we quantify behaviors relative to our own, which isn't entirely an objective place to begin. However, to understand behavior with any certainty we have to judge the behavior of other species by the standards we are only capable of fully understanding to some degree, which is the standard human behavior suggests.

 

2. How can you deduce that the ' process produces behaviours independent of instinct ' ?

Can one ever ' extricate ' behaviour from instinct ; which is but a tip of the iceberg , the bulk of which remains unseen ?

Instinctive behaviors can be deduced from what remains of behavior through decerebration experiments and brain injury study. Decerebration involves the successive removal of brain structure as a means to identify which structures produce certain behavioral attributes. Instinctive behaviors are likely to be present from birth and issue from the primitive aspects of brain structure. Behaviors that persist after the successive removal of recent brain structures are likely to suggest those behaviors that are instinctive to a spieces.

 

3. What aspect of ' Proactive behaviour ' is impossible to explain in terms of Stimulus and Response ?

To some degree, all behaviors are a response to some stimulus, whether internal or external. However, proactive behaviors can be explained as behaviors that appear to anticipate an eventuality. If not conditioned, such behaviors require some mentation process of consequence assessment relative to the actions or inactions of the animal. With conditioned behaviors, that mentation process would have had to occur concurrent with the conditioning or learning process.

Edited November 16, 2011 by DrmDoc

[StringJunky]

Hello SJ,

 

Please note that I do not engage in the point/reputation option on this board. Should you find your comments rated amid our discussions or exchanges, they were not rated by me. Also, I do not believe any ratings in this discussion thread was posted by you. That option, as I have learned, is a popularity game that the adolescents on this discussion board anonymously play to pit one poster against another to, likely, soothe some unhealthy esteem or ego related issue. Should I agree or disagree with your posts, my commentary will only appear in writing. Your written words, rather than reputation points, are the only statement of your insight and opinion that is of any substantive value to me. I wish you well.

 

Understood. You are correct in assuming that I have not used the rep system in this thread although I do use it positively for points well made or negatively if I think someone is being a jerk in some way. I never minus anyone if I just disagree with them because they are entitled to their considered opinion. I have no real knowledge in this field, or indeed most sciences in general, so my posts are presented and intended as exploratory...your input on this subject is interesting so far.

[Imza]

Interesting thread and I would have to both agree and disagree with the notion that the word "mind" is not useful. I think B.F. Skinner made the same argument and rightly so when he stated that the concept of "mind" is the relic of prescientific way of thinking about human behavior. However, even though I agree with Skinner that in terms of trying to understand human behavior is helped by not using the term mind, I think the term is still useful. It is obviously used in everyday language that helps us communicate "what's on your mind?, etc..." but also can be very helpful in therapeutic approaches. For example, trying to explain thoughts in terms of "covert behavior" would only serve to confuse clients rather than help them understand what your trying to say.

 

Self-consciousnessnecessitates behaviors that suggest an awareness of a distincition between selfand surrounding influence. Proactive behaviors necessitates a capacity toassess and anticipate consequence. This is evidence of anticipatory mentationprior to behavioral responses suggestive of reactions without such assessments.A mind is shown by reactions to stimuli that isn't typical of the instinctualresponse to such stimuli. For example, flight in response to any and all suddenloud noise suggests an instinctual response. However, calm amid some sudden andloud noise suggest a distinction process assessing a non-threat. This is anassessment of the consequences of not reacting to loud noises.

I'm still a bit confused by you term "mentation" here. In this case it seems like mentation is being described as anything that leads to behavior that would not be indicated as an instinctual behavior. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "mentation", it seems like it's another term for mental activity.

Could youclarify what you mean by "mentation," exactly? It seems like you'retalking about thought, in some sense. One of the hallmarks of behavioral theoryis that it does a relatively lovely job of explaining behavior without the needfor thought (or a "mind") of any kind. Indeed, a big part of thepoint is sort of that conditioning is a process mechanistically well-definedenough that it does not necessarily imply or necessitate a mind. But whatyou're saying might be subtle, so I'm interested to hear what you mean here.

 

 

Granted there are some behavioral theories that do not try to explain behavior by using the term mind, I think it's inaccurate to say that behavioral theory does not include thoughts (or what people typically refer to as "mind"). Behavioral theory (at least from a behavior analytic, Skinnerian perspective) does incorporate thought but considers thoughts as covert behaviors. In this sense, what is typically called "mind" is simply the behavior within the skin.

 

 

[PhDwannabe]

Granted there are some behavioral theories that do not try to explain behavior by using the term mind, I think it's inaccurate to say that behavioral theory does not include thoughts (or what people typically refer to as "mind"). Behavioral theory (at least from a behavior analytic, Skinnerian perspective) does incorporate thought but considers thoughts as covert behaviors. In this sense, what is typically called "mind" is simply the behavior within the skin.

More classical behavioral theories, I think, try to do things pretty well without a mind. More familiar "radical behaviorism" that has influenced a lot of the modern treatments, well yeah, it simply sees covert events as being governed lawfully in the same manner as overt ones. Your note is well-taken.

[DrmDoc]

I'm still a bit confused by you term "mentation" here. In this case it seems like mentation is being described as anything that leads to behavior that would not be indicated as an instinctual behavior. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "mentation", it seems like it's another term for mental activity.

 

Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary defines mentation as mental activity, which is activity relating to the mind. If a behavioral response isn't instinctual, then it is likely learned behavior as I have previous suggested. Learned behaviors in complex animals suggest the kind of sensory recognition, assessment, and memorization activity, within the brains of these animals, that could be associated with mental activity.

Edited November 17, 2011 by DrmDoc