Mind & Brain
And implications for immortality
Introduction
Clearly the mind (consciousness) and brain are closely related. But many people feel that they must be identical. If this were true, then the mind would cease to exist upon disintegration of the brain at death. This is not a comforting thought. In my other philosophy pages, I argue that matter does not even exist, as something independent of and 'external' to consciousness. Therefore, the notion of a material brain must also be excluded for the sake of consistency. However, many will not have been convinced by my reasons. So here I assume, for the sake of argument, that the brain does exist as we normally conceive of it, i.e. as a material object, and I show that, even so, there are still reasons for drawing a distinction between mind and brain. Therefore, mind cannot be assumed to disappear at death, and indeed, it seems more likely that it does not. For now, I will sketch the ideas, until I have time to elaborate.
Argument 1: Brain is a Computer The brain is just a 'computer made of meat', to use Marvin Minsky's vivid phrase. Now it seems extremely unlikely to me that any computer might be conscious. A computer is just a machine. If a computer were conscious, then why wouldn't any machine be conscious? You might say, because the brain is made of blood and tissue rather than silicon. Why should that matter? Both tissue and silicon are subatomic particles in motion — in fact, the same kind of subatomic particles. And what is a machine? Really a machine is just organized matter. By this definition, almost everything in the material world is a machine. Is everything conscious?
Some would argue that a machine is organized matter in motion. But why should the motion suddenly produce consciousness? And what about machines, such as cars and electric fans, that we do not think of as conscious? What is the fundamental difference between them and a computer? Or between a computer and a brain, for that matter? They are all organized protons and electrons in motion. Besides, motion is relative anyway, as we are told by Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.
Furthermore, our mind (immediate consciousness) appears as a unity. (I will take this as a phenomenological fact for now, although the notion is indeed subtle and requires more discussion.) Now a machine is generally made of parts which are other, smaller machines in themselves. This is clearly true of the body as a whole and of the brain itself in particular. Why don't these smaller machines have minds of their own? Why is there one consciousness for the entire brain? The brain is made of 'sub-brains' that 'talk' to each other. One part takes care of speech, another vision, and so on. What unites these parts into a single consciousness? We take this unity for granted, but closer examination reveals it to be non-trivial.
You may think that the parts of the brain 'meld' into one 'unit' because they exchange information. But when I talk to you, my brain is exchanging information with your brain. Why don't our brains momentarily fuse into one consciousness? Because the information was transmitted by sound rather than synapses? Why should that matter? Because the synapses transmit 'electricity'? Electricity is everywhere. Just about everything in our macroscopic world occurs through the interaction of electrons. So is consciousness everywhere? Is a lightning bolt conscious? An electric lamp?
The unity of consciousness is indeed quite remarkable. Even before linking a perception to the brain, we should ask the question: What keeps a perception from disintegrating into an infinity of 'pixels' of perception? What 'holds' it all together? Due to the powerful force of habit, we simply take this for granted. And even after linking a perception to the brain, we should remain puzzled. Suppose that each pixel of a perception is associated to, say, some neuron in the brain. What collects these neurons into a single perception? Because the neurons are 'communicating'? How does that produce a unity? Why would there not be bits of picture — each a distinct 'consciousness' in its own right — 'talking' to each other?
Furthermore, an organ like the liver is also a machine made of tissue. Is it conscious? I doubt it. You may say that a liver does not 'process information'. But what is the processing of information? From a reductionist point of view, it is just organized matter and electricity, like any other machine, or like any other organized structure in the material world. So why isn't every organized structure conscious?
And even before talking of the liver, we should note that parts of the brain have activities that are not associated with consciousness. What is the fundamental difference between those parts of the brain and the conscious parts of the brain? In each case, we have neurons transmitting electro-chemical signals. If we arbitrarily decree that some neurons simply 'happen to be conscious' and others are not, then we are not being scientific. We must provide a distinguishing reason. It is also not scientific to say that consciousness is an 'emergent' property of a computing machine that occurs when the information becomes 'sophisticated' enough. The classical scientific technique of reductionism proceeds by analyzing a process into its components and building the total behavior up out of the sum of those components and nothing else. This is essentially identical to the philosophy of materialism, which explains everything in terms of the motion and interaction of material particles. (The concept of energy is nothing but an aspect of the motion of the particles; it is defined in terms of the motion.) On this basis there is nothing to distinguish the unconscious from the conscious parts of the brain, or to distinguish the brain from any other machine.
Argument 2: Matter not Conscious by Definition
At an even more basic level, how can any form of matter be conscious? What is matter, according to the common conception? It is the 'stuff' that is supposed to be 'external' to consciousness. We think that a stone is made of subatomic particles that are lumps of 'something' (mass, energy, whatever), and this 'stuff' is not supposed to be conscious. Surely a stone is not conscious. But if our brain is made of the same particles as a stone, why should it be conscious?
Conclusion: Mind and Brain are not Identical The conclusion to be drawn from this is that a material brain — if it exists — cannot be conscious. (As I said, I do not in fact believe in matter, as it is normally understood. I am simply putting myself in the position of someone who believes is such a 'dualism' between mind and matter.) So the brain itself cannot be conscious. Yet mind (consciousness) is undeniable. So, from a dualistic point of view, we must admit that these two entities exist, but we cannot say that they are identical. The urge many scientists and others have to equate them is simply a powerful materialistic prejudice that is inconsistent and untenable when analyzed by the very assumptions of dualistic materialism.
There are those who claim to adhere to a strict materialistic monism, such that only matter exists. I exclude this possibility as not serious, since nothing is more evident to me than the existence and presence of my consciousness.
However, we cannot deny a close correlation between mind and brain. Clearly when light impinges on the retina, we see something. It is an open question whether there is an exact correlation between mind and brain — such that every thought, feeling and perception is in a one-to-one correspondence with some electro-chemical process in the brain.
That would have implications for so-called 'freedom of will'. In particular, our thoughts and actions would be constrained by the laws of physics. Many feel that would make us 'robots', which may seem depressing. I have argued elsewhere that it is not undesirable for our thoughts and behavior to be subject to laws — to adhere to some kind of 'determinism'. The alternative would seem to be chaos. Would you want your thoughts to be determined by the roll of some dice? What advantage would be gained by that? On the contrary, the resulting uncertainty would be most unsettling.When people say they want 'freedom of will', they really mean that they want to be able to do what they feel like doing. This simply depends on whether conditions exist in the material world to allow this. For example, do we have the strength to climb a mountain or the money to travel? People never ask why they feel like doing what they feel like doing. This is the important question. It is our values and desires that ultimately make us happy or miserable, but we take these for granted and simply insist on doing what we feel like doing. Our salvation (to a better life or state of consciousness) comes when we have the right 'attitude'. This comes about through education and through reflection upon experience. The education and reflection are implemented through the laws of matter and mind, and the spiritual growth that results is also implemented through these same laws.
So we should welcome determinism as enabling a better life. The key is to acquire the right knowledge (or rather wisdom) and attitude. This comes about through 'beneficial' determinism, just as plants grow through water and sunlight. The right kind of determinism is our friend. The absence of any determinism (good or bad) is chaos, which is never our friend, unless we enjoy the thrill of risk.
Since mind and brain cannot be equated, it is false to assume that the disintegration of the brain at death inevitably leads to the 'disappearance' of mind. On the other hand, the fact that mind and brain are distinct does not in itself guarantee that consciousness survives bodily death. However, the sharp and distinct difference between mind and brain makes it unlikely that mind simply disappears in tandem with the decay of the brain. In my opinion, this would be too much of a coincidence.
Some might argue that, yes, mind and brain are 'ontologically' distinct, but that the former is a mere 'epiphenomenon' of the latter. In this view, mind or consciousness is a kind of 'vapor' or 'ghost' given off by the brain. They are distinct entities, but cannot exist independently. The mind would thus be utterly dependent on the brain and cease to exist when the brain ceases to exist.
But why should the material brain happen to emit this non-material 'vapor' or 'ghost'? And how could it? Materialists love to explain all life mechanically and biologically, in terms of evolution. Why would evolution evolve consciousness, and how could it? Self-preservation could be accomplished through a mere insentient 'computer program' in the brain. It is not necessarily to produce pain in order to make a computer program run. And how could matter produce consciousness anyway? How could protons and electrons — mere lumps of mass and energy under the dualistic view — suddenly produce this miracle of consciousness? It is so improbable and inexplicable that I am truly amazed that so many scientists and other intellectuals of our time have taken materialism for granted and simply assumed that our consciousness disappears at death. I think that it has more to do with an egoistic identification with the body that with careful thought.
Afterword As mentioned several times, I have argued here from within the common 'dualistic' point of view, in which mind and matter are (falsely) perceived to be two separate entities, one 'in here' and the other 'out there'. By 'mind' was meant consciousness or awareness in general (not just conceptual consciousness or some other limited kind of consciousness). By 'matter' was meant the dead, inert, unconscious 'stuff' that seems to exist externally to our mind. Under this view, the brain seems to be made of matter, and the question then became its relation to mind. This article addressed that question.
And as also mentioned, I do not in fact believe in matter separate from consciousness. I have argued for this in detail in my philosophy pages. Perhaps it may be of interest to sketch how 'brain' is to be interpreted under the 'non-dualistic' view, in which what appears to be matter is seen as not distinct from consciousness.
Through our senses, we have many 'perceptions' which seem to originate from a material world out there. The perceptions themselves are clearly within consciousness, but their presumed origin in material objects suggests that they are somehow copies of those material objects. The argument against the existence of those material objects is twofold: (1) we have no justification for presuming the existence of an inherently unobservable material world, and (2) we do not even know what we really mean by such a material world. We have no justification for presuming the existence of matter, since the perceptions may simply exist 'by themselves' as in a dream, or they may be caused directly by God or even a demon. The reason that we believe in an external, material origin for perception is that different people see similar perceptions when in the 'same place'. This creates the illusion of a common origin outside of perception. At a more subtle level, our notion of an external, material world is not even a clear and distinct concept, being really no more than a kind of phantasmagoric copy of perception.
To make a long story short, there are only different forms of consciousness, namely, perceptions, thoughts and feelings (emotions). Even a brain is only a bundle of perceptions in somebody's consciousness, whether that of the surgeon, the autopsist, or even ourself, should we ever somehow be able to observe it, perhaps by surgically removing it while somehow keeping it intact and connected to our brainstem. I do not deny the vivid perception of the body and of sensations and perceptions associated to the body; I only deny the existence of anything other than the vivid perceptions and sensations. The body is a bundle of perceptions within our consciousness.
Now it so happens that some aspects of our consciousness, namely, thoughts, feelings and sensations (such as heat, cold, pleasure and pain) are associated with those bundles of perceptions which we call the body. If I hold a candle to my finger, I feel heat and pain. However, despite appearances, nothing in that entire experience is distinct from consciousness. The finger and the flame are all perceptions within consciousness, and so is the sensation of pain. Hence all discussion of the relation of mind and brain is a question of the correlation between some aspects of our consciousness (thoughts, feelings and sensations) and other aspects of our consciousness (the perception of our body and in particular of our brain). The details of this correlation are to be determined by scientific investigation. It may be that every thought and feeling is somehow associated to an 'electro-chemical process' in the brain, or this may not be the case. The point made by this article is that the 'electro-chemical process' is not something 'outside' of consciousness; it is not a material object that exists independently of consciousness.
This seems to defy common sense, by raising questions such as 'Does my body cease to exist when I do not perceive it, such as in sleep?' The answer is 'Yes, but it doesn't matter.' The 'ceasing to exist' is not the ceasing to exist of an external, material object. So we must be careful in using words like 'ceasing to exist' and not get shocked based on a misconception. And we will indeed perceive our body again when we wake up. If we are honest, we will admit that is all we really care about. (Of course, we may 'die' in our sleep, but that is another story.) In daily life, we in fact behave as though our perceptions are all we care about. It is only when we think that we tie our mind up in knots over imagined external objects. So maybe it is better not to think too much!