Brain Injuries and Materialism

Can you flesh out the text I've bolded?
As far as the philosophical issues with it, I think Thomas Nagel hits a number of very good points in Mind and Cosmos. He talks a lot about how difficult it would be to trust our faculties fully given a purely naturalistic origin, which is something I think many people don't take seriously enough. The intelligibility of the world is something he focuses on, as well as our ability to reason with objectivity. Not in the sense that people are without bias, but that we are able to recognize when something can be objectively true or false independent of whatever we personally believe; and that we can conceptualize things is something else that can be used in argument against it. I'm happy to find and post some quotes if you like since it would be hard to really provide a full on, comprehensive post which included the best philosophical arguments against materialism that I'm aware of... I'm really busy right now or I would be able to elaborate more fully.

In terms of PSI, I must admit that I'm not familiar enough with all of the research to make a significant claim one way or the other with regards to it favoring or not favoring materialism. I do think that in terms of evidence there is no shortage of things that challenge materialism, such as, like I said earlier, the Stevenson and Tucker studies. I've yet to see an argument that comes remotely close to making sense of those studies materialistically.
 
As far as the philosophical issues with it, I think Thomas Nagel hits a number of very good points in Mind and Cosmos. He talks a lot about how difficult it would be to trust our faculties fully given a purely naturalistic origin, which is something I think many people don't take seriously enough. The intelligibility of the world is something he focuses on, as well as our ability to reason with objectivity. Not in the sense that people are without bias, but that we are able to recognize when something can be objectively true or false independent of whatever we personally believe; and that we can conceptualize things is something else that can be used in argument against it. I'm happy to find and post some quotes if you like since it would be hard to really provide a full on, comprehensive post which included the best philosophical arguments against materialism that I'm aware of... I'm really busy right now or I would be able to elaborate more fully.
Philosophers spend a lifetime asking questions and offering their opinions. That is all they ever do.

In terms of PSI, I must admit that I'm not familiar enough with all of the research to make a significant claim one way or the other with regards to it favoring or not favoring materialism. I do think that in terms of evidence there is no shortage of things that challenge materialism, such as, like I said earlier, the Stevenson and Tucker studies. I've yet to see an argument that comes remotely close to making sense of those studies materialistically.
People in general and it's argued here with fervor have a rather narrow usage of this word materialism. By this narrow definition PSI would partly invalidate materialism : "a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter", but then I think of the photon which is not matter yet is utilized in many processes or space itself which certainly has no substance, yet it can be twisted ( known as frame dragging) and bent both of which have been observed. So why should PSI (spiritual realm) which many claim is absolutely immaterial yet apparently manifests itself rather easily be any less material? It (PSI) may be without substance but why does that invalidate materialism? I don't use this word materialism; if I use any word its physicalism but I don't use that too. The question I ask is a simple question, is something true or not true?
 
Philosophers spend a lifetime asking questions and offering their opinions. That is all they ever do.


People in general and it's argued here with fervor have a rather narrow usage of this word materialism. By this narrow definition PSI would partly invalidate materialism : "a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter", but then I think of the photon which is not matter yet is utilized in many processes or space itself which certainly has no substance, yet it can be twisted ( known as frame dragging) and bent both of which have been observed. So why should PSI (spiritual realm) which many claim is absolutely immaterial yet apparently manifests itself rather easily be any less material? It (PSI) may be without substance but why does that invalidate materialism? I don't use this word materialism; if I use any word its physicalism but I don't use that too. The question I ask is a simple question, is something true or not true?

So without addressing any of those legitimate claims, you pay them no heed because it's a philosopher? Philosophy is important. Any and every person who has opined on this issue, whether it be a scientist, philosopher, or any other person has used philosophy whether they realize it or not. Additionally Nagel raises a large number of scientific objections to materialism/physicalism but you bolded where I said philosophy so I stuck to a very general and unspecific few of those arguments in responding.

I agree that materialism can be used in a more narrow form sometimes, and I think Sci attested to that earlier in this thread. Again, with regards to PSI I'm not in a position to argue strongly one way or another. There are a number of other evidences that sway me more strongly and that I am much more familiar with that help me form an opinion. Additionally, when you stray from the more narrow definition of materialism you approach territory that can get pretty murky as far as what matter can be defined as goes. I've seen members here comment on that a bunch of times.
 
So without addressing any of those legitimate claims, you pay them no heed because it's a philosopher? Philosophy is important. Any and every person who has opined on this issue, whether it be a scientist, philosopher, or any other person has used philosophy whether they realize it or not. Additionally Nagel raises a large number of scientific objections to materialism/physicalism but you bolded where I said philosophy so I stuck to a very general and unspecific few of those arguments in responding.
Raising objections is not the same as proving those objections invalidate materialism or anything else. They are just more questions. I took it upon myself to look for an answer. Here's what I found.
Philosophy is generally predicated on, and perhaps more about, asking questions rather than finding answers. It's a search for wisdom, not truth. The only thing that all philosophers would all agree exists, besides themselves perhaps, would be questions. And sometimes, philosophers will pretend that even those don't exist. So, philosophy doesn't, as a whole, assume that any fundamental rules exist upon which to build "proven" answers.
Look at it this way. Name one thing that is proven to be true argued by a philosopher or Nagel in this case.?

I agree that materialism can be used in a more narrow form sometimes [it should be most of the time on this forum at least, my edit], and I think Sci attested to that earlier in this thread. Again, with regards to PSI I'm not in a position to argue strongly one way or another. There are a number of other evidences that sway me more strongly and that I am much more familiar with that help me form an opinion. Additionally, when you stray from the more narrow definition of materialism you approach territory that can get pretty murky as far as what matter can be defined as goes. I've seen members here comment on that a bunch of times.
It (PSI) can't get anymore murky than it already is. If it was as clear as you and many others believe it to be there would be no need wonder if the world is immaterial or material.
 
Philosophers spend a lifetime asking questions and offering their opinions. That is all they ever do.


People in general and it's argued here with fervor have a rather narrow usage of this word materialism. By this narrow definition PSI would partly invalidate materialism : "a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter", but then I think of the photon which is not matter yet is utilized in many processes or space itself which certainly has no substance, yet it can be twisted ( known as frame dragging) and bent both of which have been observed. So why should PSI (spiritual realm) which many claim is absolutely immaterial yet apparently manifests itself rather easily be any less material? It (PSI) may be without substance but why does that invalidate materialism? I don't use this word materialism; if I use any word its physicalism but I don't use that too. The question I ask is a simple question, is something true or not true?

Aye, rather than using these big block terms (like materialism, or physicalism) that mean very different things to different people, I find it easier if people can specifically state the particular issue they don't agree with.

For example, one of my issues is with the general assumption of many (most?) neuroscientists who would agree with a statement along the lines of.. "[the scull] is a sealed chamber. So the brain sits in darkness and in silence. It's in total isolation."

That's probably one of the more bizarre issues I've come across, which I disagree with.

I think focusing on specific issues like this helps everyone, by exposing specific claims and subjecting them to a bit of discussion. Much better than relying on using broad labels that could mean just about anything.
 
Aye, rather than using these big block terms (like materialism, or physicalism) that mean very different things to different people, I find it easier if people can specifically state the particular issue they don't agree with.

For example, one of my issues is with the general assumption of many (most?) neuroscientists who would agree with a statement along the lines of.. "[the scull] is a sealed chamber. So the brain sits in darkness and in silence. It's in total isolation."

That's probably one of the more bizarre issues I've come across, which I disagree with.

I think focusing on specific issues like this helps everyone, by exposing specific claims and subjecting them to a bit of discussion. Much better than relying on using broad labels that could mean just about anything.
Can you provide reference(s) the underlined statement?
 
I am interested in why you disagree with most neuroscientists thinking with regard to our brain Max.

Well just from a very conservative viewpoint...

- external EM fields pass right through the body, the magnetic component of the EM field in particular does this with very little distortion.

- We measure EM fields leaving the brain with EEG/MEG from outside of the scull all the time. If we can measure these weak EM fields from the brain after they have passed through the scull, it's self evident that EM fields can also go the other way... from outside the scull and into the brain.

- we have plenty of evidence from Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) that very strong magnetic fields can affect the brain, by setting up electrical currents within its networks.

- we also have evidence that very weak EM fields can be transduced (converted to another form) by the brain. It's not thought that the mechanism for transducing these weak fields is the same as TMS.

- we also have evidence that the brain's networks are more sensitive to these weak magnetic fields than individual neurons are. For some reason larger network structures are more sensitive than individual neurons.

- we have a number of behavioural studies that demonstrate an effect on organisms (birds/turtles etc) using hyper-weak oscillating magnetic fields. These are fields can be as low as 40,000 times weaker than the earth's magnetic field. There is no lower limit as yet on how weak these fields can be.

- since 2010 we have evidence that the brain's own weak EM fields are used to entrain its own networks in a feedback loop. Before 2010 it was still believed that the EM field from neuron firing was an epiphenomena. That is that these EM fields had no effect on the brain's operation themselves.
 
Last edited:
Episode 1 "The Brain" @ 3:44


Hopefully you can watch it without restriction.
I think you should be careful not to read to much into programs like this that are geared for a general audience. The statements are dumbed down for general consumption.
 
Episode 1 "The Brain" @ 3:44


Hopefully you can watch it without restriction.
You've slightly took what he said out of context. When he says the brain sits in the skull in total isolation he specifically names some of the common senses none of which the brain experiences directly David Eagleman points out.

I had to watch another video of his.
 
I think you should be careful not to read to much into programs like this that are geared for a general audience. The statements are dumbed down for general consumption.

I'm a reasonably bright guy Arouet, and I've talked with plenty of trained neuroscientists. This is my experience of them generally. It's perfectly valid.

The idea that the brain is isolated (apart from input from the senses) is a given. It's just assumed. That's how the principles of neuroscience are taught at university. Honestly, many (most?) neuroscientists don't have any problem with Eaglemans statement. As far as they are concerned, the brain is impervious to everyday strength external EM field effects, and they don't concern themselves about why.
 
I'm a reasonably bright guy Arouet, and I've talked with plenty of trained neuroscientists. This is my experience of them generally. It's perfectly valid.

The idea that the brain is isolated (apart from input from the senses) is a given. It's just assumed. That's how the principles of neuroscience are taught at university. Honestly, many (most?) neuroscientists don't have any problem with Eaglemans statement. As far as they are concerned, the brain is impervious to everyday strength external EM field effects, and they don't concern themselves about why.
I have no idea. I'm just commenting on the quote you provided. As Steve said, I don't think that particular statement should be taken to be commenting on potential em effects.
 
Yes, I'm sure about what I said.

Right then. So neuroscientists are accept some impacts of em fields but not in the way you envision. Not sure why if they are open to some they wouldn't be to others. And despite this you hold that they consider the head a closed box - except when they don't.

(I'm getting a sense of deja vue here. Have we had this exact exchange before? Maybe even with the same link? Not going to search but I think we might have).

A joy chatting with you as always...
 
Last edited:
You've slightly took what he said out of context. When he says the brain sits in the skull in total isolation he specifically names some of the common senses none of which the brain experiences directly David Eagleman points out.

I had to watch another video of his.

He's quite clear stating "...we first need to understand how information gets into our brain...". It was just an example quote from a neuroscientist, but many others hold a similar view.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top