Brain processes and individual experience

[davidsmith73]

I have a problem with the idea that experiences are brain processes. If we consider any particular experience existing in the universe or set of experiences and the claim that they only have an objective existence in the form of a brain process then one fundamental question poses itself - where does the "self" come from ? In other words, why do "I" only experience certain brain processes that exist in the universe and not others ? The other brain processes that objectively exist such as Bob's or Jane's brain processes are not experienced by me, yet I see no logical reason for this segregation to exist. I only say this because the idea that experiences are brain processes gives no hint as to why my experiences are bound to my particular brain processes but not someone elses.

 

[Samus]

I think your disagreement is with Materialism. If all of our emotions and thoughts are generated by physical processes (chemicals in the brain, etc.), then there is no "mind", no "consciousness". Those words may describe concepts, but they do not describe actual things. You cannot dissect a person and extract their mind, as it exists only in the conceptual realm, within the physical boundaries of the brain. In short: you have no "self".

Under that line of thinking, your individual experiences are no more than your own brain's reaction to the stimuli around you. The reason that your reactions and thoughts may be different than Bob's or Jane's is that your brain has been exposed to a unique set of stimuli: i.e., the things that have happened to you in your life. No one else has done everything you have done; has been exposed to every set of circumstances at the exact same time and in the exact same order as you.

Thoughts? Some might recall from Franko's brief return that my jury is still out on Materialism, I'm just trying to see if I understand it better.

 

[LW]

I only say this because the idea that experiences are brain processes gives no hint as to why my experiences are bound to my particular brain processes but not someone elses.

Locality. You experience only your own brain processes because your mind also is a brain process that resides in the very same brain. Or at least, this if materialism is correct.

 

[Upchurch]

If all of our emotions and thoughts are generated by physical processes (chemicals in the brain, etc.), then there is no "mind", no "consciousness".

Right. If this were true, then a significant blow or trama to the head could cause a change in the mind or consciousness and obviously that never happens. Further, if consciousness were to change, there would be a change in the brain itself. Has anything like that been observed?

 

[RichardR]

The other brain processes that objectively exist such as Bob's or Jane's brain processes are not experienced by me, yet I see no logical reason for this segregation to exist.

Bob and Jane's brains are separate from your brain. Couldn't that be a logical reason why you don't experience Bob and Jane's brain processes?

 

[jan]

The other brain processes that objectively exist such as Bob's or Jane's brain processes are not experienced by me, yet I see no logical reason for this segregation to exist.

Schopenhauer once suggested that you are indeed experiencing Bob's and Jane's brain processes, but not immediatly, just time after time. First, you have to finish experiencing all those brain processes of davidsmith73.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Materialism? That's so old people. Last time I checked we abandoned those outdated philosophies in favour of naturalism. Your mind (or concious self) is a by-product of your individual brain processes. Jane and John's mind is a by-product of their individual brain processes.

 

[Dancing David]

The self is an illusion, just like the mind.
there is a body, there are thoughts, there are feelings, there are sensations and there are habits
(thus spake the buddha)
There is no mind, it is another set of deicrete events that we errneously link together.

Why shouldn't there be seperation of awareness, I would think that it is idealism that implies we should read each others minds.

 

[Yahweh]

I have a problem with the idea that experiences are brain processes. If we consider any particular experience existing in the universe or set of experiences and the claim that they only have an objective existence in the form of a brain process then one fundamental question poses itself - where does the "self" come from ? In other words, why do "I" only experience certain brain processes that exist in the universe and not others ? The other brain processes that objectively exist such as Bob's or Jane's brain processes are not experienced by me, yet I see no logical reason for this segregation to exist. I only say this because the idea that experiences are brain processes gives no hint as to why my experiences are bound to my particular brain processes but not someone elses.

"Self" is not a tangible substance that exists objectively, it is at its most simplistic just another word that describes "I am I who I am" (correct me if I'm wrong, Ian).

It would be absurd to believe Bob and Jane do not exist because you cant know if they experience reality (welcome to Solipism).

Assuming Bob and Jane have no medical or psycological conditions, it would be absurd to believe there perception of reality isnt the same as yours (from there own frame-of-reference of course). Human brains are designed to work and function in the same fashion, for practical purposes I just say they are exactly alike.

Experiences are not entirely limited to brain processes (Note: Nobody take my words out of context in one way or another, please dont waste everybody's time by citing every what-if scenario that comes to mind, practice Yahweh's "No-◊◊◊◊" form of rationality), they stem from reality. Otherwise, we might as well say experience can be described with the "brain in a vat" scenario or the "it could just be a dream" postulate. (Assuming no medical or psychological functions) If you are having a conversation with someone in front of you, you can rationally conclude "Yes, the person I am talking with exists, he is not a figment of my imagination".

 

[Mercutio]

In other words, why do "I" only experience certain brain processes that exist in the universe and not others ? The other brain processes that objectively exist such as Bob's or Jane's brain processes are not experienced by me, yet I see no logical reason for this segregation to exist.

I always wondered why I couldn't digest the food Bob and Jane had chewed and swallowed...

 

[davidsmith73]

I think your disagreement is with Materialism. If all of our emotions and thoughts are generated by physical processes (chemicals in the brain, etc.), then there is no "mind", no "consciousness". Those words may describe concepts, but they do not describe actual things. You cannot dissect a person and extract their mind, as it exists only in the conceptual realm, within the physical boundaries of the brain. In short: you have no "self".

Under that line of thinking, your individual experiences are no more than your own brain's reaction to the stimuli around you. The reason that your reactions and thoughts may be different than Bob's or Jane's is that your brain has been exposed to a unique set of stimuli: i.e., the things that have happened to you in your life. No one else has done everything you have done; has been exposed to every set of circumstances at the exact same time and in the exact same order as you.

Thoughts? Some might recall from Franko's brief return that my jury is still out on Materialism, I'm just trying to see if I understand it better.

I was refering to the "self" merely in the sense that I do not experience someone elses brain processes. In order for my point to be valid I don't think that I need to think of the self in terms of an actual "thing" in its own right. Lets call the self ("I") a set of experiences correlated with a particular individual person's brain processes.

I may not be articulating my point very well here. If you say that your individual experiences are no more than your own brain's reaction to the stimuli around you, this creates a problem thus. Someone elses individual experiences are no more than their own brain's reaction to the stimuli around them. So the question is:

Why should "I" (illusionary or not) be me and not you ? Both sets of brain processes from me and you that manifest our respective "I" qualify as existing as an experience yet "I" finds itself locallised to me rather than you. To put it crudely, why didn't I grow up to be your "I" instead of my "I" ?

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Brain processes and individual experience

Bob and Jane's brains are separate from your brain. Couldn't that be a logical reason why you don't experience Bob and Jane's brain processes?

To put it crudely, why am "I" me and not you. Both brain processes from me and you manifest as experiences yet my experiences somehow have been "selected" to manifest to one particular physical loci. (By the word "selected" I'm not implying any intervention by any god or higher force or such notions)

 

[davidsmith73]

Re: Re: Brain processes and individual experience

I always wondered why I couldn't digest the food Bob and Jane had chewed and swallowed...

Whats your point ?

 

[Samus]

To put it crudely, why didn't I grow up to be our "I" instead of my "I" ?

Because you have been exposed to different things than I have. Because your "self" (however you define that) has had a different set of stimuli thrust at it.

 

[RichardR]

Re: Re: Re: Brain processes and individual experience

To put it crudely, why am "I" me and not you. Both brain processes from me and you manifest as experiences yet my experiences somehow have been "selected" to manifest to one particular physical loci.

Because your brain is in you and mine is in me. Pretty simple, really.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

David, I just sent you a pm about it.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Brain processes and individual experience

Ok, so why is your brain your brain and my brain my brain?

Because your brain is in you and mine is in me. Pretty simple, really.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Ok, let's go back for a second. You're just getting born and you have no experiences as of yet. What causes these particular cells to form into your brain and not say mine... Or better still, taking all experiences away, just leaving the conciousness behind, why is your conciousness yours and my conciousness mine in the first place?

Because you have been exposed to different things than I have. Because your "self" (however you define that) has had a different set of stimuli thrust at it.

 

[Suezoled]

As I understand it, in order for you, as an independent multi cell ogranism to exist and flourish, a self operating regulatory mechanism or set of mechanisms must exist. In this case, brain and spinal cord. From before conception, DNA to produce these mechanisms in a viable body (self-defeating mutations not taken into account) is present. Life, simplified, comes in two flavors: self preservation and self replication. It is easier and far more conducive for Bob and Jane to have their own brains each. If they shared a brain and consciousness, if the mutual brain were damaged, at least 2 otherwise healthy people (present psychological and physical disorders not withstanding) would be lost/damaged at the same time. At the least, if Jane suffered some sort of concussion, wouldn't it traumatize Bob?

People simply aren't connected on a conscious brain-to-brain level. They are results from their own X and Y chromosomes, self contained units of DNA that developed independently of other humans, even twins.

Dang it's late. Night folks!

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Suez, that's not even beginning to address the question.