Biochemistry and electricity. And the evidence there’s plenty of data showing a direct correlation between mind and the brain, and that’s the only explanation that has any evidence at all.
Don’t be disingenuous. You keep on trying to claim that there could be an alternate explanation to the mind being physical; in other worlds, a soul of some sort.
JThunder, why are you asking somebody to prove that a soul doesn’t exist, anyway? Obviously that’s not how it works.
No, it doesn’t. It only shows that chemistry plays a major role. It does not necessarily demonstrate that memory is determined exclusively by chemistry.
And even if it did, this still falls far, far short of demonstrating that one’s personality is exclusively determined by chemistry. You simply can’t jump from saying “Chemistry determines memory” to saying “Aha! Our entire personalities are nothing more than biochemical interactions!” It does not logically follow.
And if I had asked someone to prove that souls do not exist, your objection would have merit. I did not, though. In fact, I said nothing about a soul until Der Trihs brought it up.
Rather, I’m contesting CurtC’s claim that we have extensive evidence which suggests that (ahem) our personalities are determined exclusively by biochemical processes and nothing more. Because he made this claim, I’m asking him to provide the evidence. I think it’s pretty clear that the evidence doesn’t come anywhere close to supporting this conclusion.
Once again: He made the claim, and so I’m asking him to back it up. One doesn’t get to dodge this by saying “Oh yeah? Then prove to me that I’m wrong!” In your own words, that’s obviously not how it works.
Well said. That leaves only, for the spiritualists, either A) “Some compounds have both a physical and spiritual effect – see incense and peyote and such as traditionally spiritual compounds”, or B) “drugs reprocess all the input into the antenna brain, making it appear as though mental processes are being changed when they’re not.”
Honestly, the only thing that makes me even consider thinking about it this way is my experience with my grandmother’s nearly decade-long battle with Alzheimer’s–She had moments of total and relative lucidity even up to the very end, even when most of her time was spent banging on tray tables and cursing in Slovak and Czech, and in those moments when she was able to recognize people she was also somewhat to very clear that she felt “trapped”, not “damaged”, as though some part of her was thinking clearly full-time in its own opinion but rarely able to plow through the mess the disease was making of her brain.
It’s not really any EVIDENCE, per se, but it was a rather powerful experience for me (seeing as it took place in my high school years when my thought processes were coming into bloom as it were) and it colors my thinking about a lot of things with regard to how the brain “works”.
You keep saying that there’s abundant evidence, but you have yet to cite any.
I’m asking you to defend your claim. This is entirely different from postulating an alternate explanation or offering positive evidence that you’re wrong.
So far, the argument has gone as follows:
Side A: “We have abundant evidence that our personalities are nothing more than chemical interactions within our brains.”
Side B: “What evidence are you talking about?”
Side A: << Cites experiments in which memory is affected in rats, etc. >>
Side B: “That doesn’t prove that these mental functions are determined exclusively by chemistry, though. And even if it did, it doesn’t prove that the entirety of one’s personality is determined by these chemical interactions.”
Side A: “Well then, prove to me that it isn’t! Prove to me that a soul exists!”
Side B: “I said nothing about a soul.”
Side A: “Prove to me that I’m wrong! Where is your evidence for a soul?”
You have to admit that it’s going to be hard for someone, in the context of a post on the SDMB, to cite the thousands and thousands of studies that have linked human behaviour to activity that takes place in the brain. What proof would be sufficient for you? One is apparently not enough; how about ten?
All the evidence we have points to the biochemical, material explanation. Exclusively. We have no evidence of anything other than material processes. It seems that you’re going beyond what’s reasonable and asking for proof that something more doesn’t exist. Again, I said “We have a large amount of evidence that your personality, who you are, is simply a result of biochemical process in the physical brain.” That’s the truth. We do not have absolute proof that there is nothing else going on.
I’m trying to see where you’re coming from here, wondering if I’m really not taking a defensible position. If we had a murder case, and all the evidence points to person A, and there’s a lot of it, and no evidence at all points to person B, I think it would be fair to say that “we have a large amount of evidence that the murder was the result simply of person A’s actions.” And it seems like you’re asking me for proof that person B had nothing to do with it, which we don’t have, and I think that’s an impossible standard.
I think you’re misunderstanding the Scientific method. The Scientific method establishes probable answers that fit available evidence. It doesn’t establish universal truths. The only establishable universal truth is “I think therefor I am”. Beyond that is speculation.
It’s disingenuous to claim there couldn’t be an alternate explanation. Which you seem to be implying.
Occam’s Razor cuts away an unobserved, untestable soul and leaves observed electrochemical phenomena as the probable explanation, but that doesn’t mean it’s the true explanation.
For what it’s worth I agree that the mind is electrochemical in nature.
JThunder, there is plenty of evidence to support the fact that personalities are shaped by the physical makeup of our brains, as shown by Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) studies. Take for example these studies from *The Journal of Neuropsychiatry
and Clinical Neurosciences *detailing personality changes following brain injuries. Morbid as it may be, the fact remains that the extent of the brain injury is a strong indicator of the extent of the change in personality. Also, we can obviously modify an individual’s personality at least temporarily by the administration of chemicals (e.g. antidepressants). All this and much more quite sufficiently supports the view that biochemical processes shape personality.
Now if you want to argue that some other force or element influences personalities, it would behoove you to produce at least some small amount of evidence as others have done in support of the biochemical view. If you just want to state that there is always the possibility of some other influencing factor on personality development, well I guess that’s true, but it is a completely useless point without backup. You may also believe that the current data related to the composition of the moon doesn’t tell the whole story, and that some other heretofore undiscovered “green cheese” element comprises a significant portion of the moon’s surface, but don’t expect anyone to take you seriously until you have produced something remotely resembling evidence for it.
I don’t think he said that, implicitly or explicitly. That sentence that you keyed on was just him pointing out that the alternate explanation, i.e. a non-material responsible process, is the equivalent to the term “soul.”
To be fair to JThunder, I don’t think he’s taking that position. He seems to be disagreeing about who is making the claim and where the burden of proof lies. He took my statement to mean that there was evidence that there was no soul, when I simply meant that the evidence that exists all points the other direction.
It don’t read like that to me, but if so I stand corrected.
Trying to point fingers as to which person is making a positive claim and therefore must provide the evidence is nothing more than rhetorical nonsense. In a scientific debate, evidence will always rule the day. If he wishes to postulate a role for something in shaping personalities, he is welcome to present his case. If he only wants someone else to disprove the entire universe of other possible influences on personality development, especially without speficifying what exactly he would like us to eliminate as a factor, this is simply a silly debating tactic and does nothing to advance the knowledge of any topic.
And if I had contested that, you would have a point. As you know full well though, I did not. Quite the contrary, as I’ve stated several times now, I fully acknowledge that our personalities are shaped by biochemical processes. In fact, I specifically cited the example of brain trauma, just as you did.
What I am contesting is the notion that we have abundant evidence that our personalities are exclusively determined by these biochemical processes. I’ve emphasized this several times now, which leads me to suspect that certain people here are deliberately ignoring that point.
And if I had been arguing that there IS some other force at work, your objection would have some point. As I have stated multiple times now, that is NOT what I am arguing. Rather, I am – and I’ve said this numerous times now – addressing the claim of abundant evidence of 100% determination by said chemical processes. The evidence is nowhere near that comprehensive.
Here’s a clue for you: The statement “We don’t have enough evidence to conclude that our personalities are 100% determined by chemical interactions” is NOT logically equivalent to saying “There must be some other force at work!” I am arguing for the first claim, not the second. Or more specifically, I am asking others to produce their evidence that we do have abundant evidence of 100% chemical determinism.
So far, nobody has provided that evidence. Oh sure, they point to instances of brain trauma and other factors, but that’s not the same as 100% chemical determinism. I’ve attempted to point this out, only to be greeted by angry retorts of “Where is your evidence for a soul, you scoffer?!?!?!”
And I’m asking people to cite that evidence. Nobody has. Instead, they angrily ask me to prove them wrong. Sorry, but that’s not how the scientific method works either.
Here’s a clue: If somebody says that they have evidence for claim A, it’s up to them to provide that evidence. It’s not up to the skeptics to prove their claim to be incorrect. That’s what burden of proof is all about.
I implied no such thing. I asked people to provide the evidence that they claim is so abundant. People have cited examples wherein aspects of one’s personality are physically affected, but that’s obviously not the same thing.
Saying “You do not have enough evidence for your conclusion” is NOT (repeat: NOT) logically equivalent to saying “There must be some alternative explanation!” Back when I taught college physics, I expected every one of my students to understand that distinction. Sadly, not everyone does.
And if I had asked them to cite the thousands of studies that link human behavior to brain activity, you would have a point. Heck, if I had even contested the notion that human behavior is linked to brain activity, you would also have a point. Since I have repeatedly emphasized that I do not dispute that particular claim, I can only surmise that people are either failing to grasp this distinction or deliberately ignoring it.
What I am addressing is the claim that human behavior is EXCLUSIVELY determined by these biochemical interactions. People have referred to the studies that you mentioned, but not a single person has cited a study which demonstrates that these individual aspects of personality (much less the entire personality) are exclusively determined by chemical processes within the brain. Not a single person.
Heck, for the sake of argument, we could even agree that personality is purely chemical in nature. Even then though, that still would not support the notion that we have abundant scientific evidence to this effect. That’s because we don’t.
Just as I suspected – you don’t want to assert anything useful, you just want to sit back and claim to claim nothing. Meanwhile, you ask everyone else to do all the work disproving the infinite set of alternatives as you proudly state “Hey I’m not claiming anything!”. Rhetorical nonsense.
So far, only one side has produced any data supporting a position, and it hasn’t been you. And all evidence to date supports the notion that physical processes produce personality changes. You may wish to stake your claim on the thin gap in our current knowledge and insist this means we can’t make positive statements about the material underpinnings of human personality, but it is a ridiculous stance to take. I hope to see you just as feverishly defend our next Green Cheeser, since we cannot be 100% sure that 100% of the Moon isn’t a moldy dairy product.
Um, why do you expect a study like this? It’s not how science works. To date, every single study into the brain/personality/etc has found physical causes. To date, no study has found non-physical causes. So right now to the best of our knowledge, human behavior is exclusively determined by biochemical interactions.
Can this change? Yes. Is it likely to? I’m not betting on it.