The difference between brain and consciousness

Aren't our whole bodies replaced every seven years or something?

I just finished reading Kindly Inquisitors by Jonathan Rauch and he talks a lot about the idea of how we disregard theories because they're not "scientific" or haven't been proven by science and how this stems from a eurocentric elitism point of view and this just reminded me of the idea about the Ego Theory

So does this not apply to people with amnesia? Is he arguing that when we lose our memories our lives no longer have unity?

Does that mean there are two persons in one body? Like the conjoined twins case study?

corpus callosum

Can you punish one conjoined twin for something that the other did because they share the same body? Who's mind controls the body? Who is held responsible?

Where does consciousness live? Can you lose your entire body and still be the same person? In that case what's the problem with uploading your brain?

Highlighting the difference from person and man

Don't you need to have the same memories in order to be the same person as someone?

John Locke was a believer in the aspect of memory defining a person and if someone loses memories their identity may change.

Even if the examples are small and unimportant it still demonstrates that everything isn't predetermined

Going left wasn't predetermined, hence free will

When there is no real rhyme or reason for your decision

I will forever hold onto the notion that we have free will, because if we don't I will slip into an existential crisis for a long time. Being in control of my choices is one of the few things I feel like I do have control over so I will grab at any evidence that suggest such.

I don't think the study of pressing a button is a good indication of free will. Its along side the notion of the "itchy trigger finger" or like a reflex. Just because my finger spasmed to press a button because it is a button and my brain is condition to press buttons does not mean that my brain knows my choices before I make them.

and therefore no longer feel responsible for their actions

But they are rather rare in organic life forms

I think it is very dangerous to come to this conclusion, mainly because of how individuals will interpret this information

Compatibilism

there must be some sort of incentive to not do bad things or else people will have no motivation to be good. Maybe the fear of punishment is the exterior "nurture" that prevents acts of evil

While I do think this is a good analogy to provide a different point of view and advocate for rehibilitation-which I fully support- I don't think humans can truly be compared to machines like cars. Some time humans are bad, plain and simply, and while I like to think there is hope for everybody, that is simply not true. People like Ted Bundy cannot be rehabilitated and no energy should be wasted on that. I am not advocating for the death penalty I just think humans need to be viewed as complicated creatures with thoughts and consciousness and cannot fit into the cookie-cutter shape of a car.

I think the death penalty is one of the more hypocritical forms of the justice system in our country or other places around the world. Usually the death sentence is given for murder, which is incredibly backwards. How can we punish people with the same treatment we are condemning them with in the first place?

Again, alluding to a theory that isn't quite developed yet

Another note- it seems like laws or rules or definitions in philosophy are constantly being changed/adjusted with new information

Why don't psychophysical laws exist?

There is a flaw in the concept that physics can explain everything in the universe because it cannot explain consciousness.

How: easy, Why: hard

Just my opinion- I feel like all of philosophy is asking questions and proving why answers aren't correct. There never seem to be any agreed upon answers.

Knowing everything there is to know about something is not a sufficient condition for experiencing something, and experiencing something is not a necessary condition of knowing all there is to know about it.

Reductionism looks at consciousness from an objective, scientific view

because we are conscious we know the most about it

making sure the experiment is controlled and without other variables

This is like zoning out for periods, similar to acting on autopilot.

We would have an inherent bias when trying to evaluate ourselves because we cannot objectively observe our behavior without the interference of understanding our thoughts.

Dispositions cause behavior

Something has to happen, some environmental influence that will lead to these dispositions

Relativism

Having a disposition just means you are likely to act in a certain way but it doesn't require that you act in this way,

The same argument about pain. One can feel pain and not show it and one can show pain and not feel it which shows that mental states are not brain states.

"the theory that human and animal behavior can be explained in terms of conditioning, without appeal to thoughts or feelings, and that psychological disorders are best treated by altering behavior patterns"

Because the general public believes the physio-chemical terms of the mind it is important that philosophers start at this place so people are willing to hear what they have to say and don't write them off as nonsense.

Small side note, I just think it's interesting how everything is in terms of "men", shows the times.

As read in the textbook, the ability of doubting that one is thinking provides evidence that one is thinking because to doubt is to think.

While perceiving is an attribute of the body thinking is an attribute of the mind.

Does he mean the opposite of God? The Devil?

is Descartes claiming that these are conditions in which something can exist? If it can be felt, seen, hear, tasted, and smelled?

Necessary v. Sufficient conditions

I am reading 1984 in my FYS and this line reminds me of the protagonist, WInston, and his unreliable memories of the past. The reader has the believe that Winston's memories are true but towards the end of the novel when Winston questions his sanity it makes the reader question if his memories can be taken at face value.

This reminds me of classic overthinking, being stuck in the past and analyzing behavior and decisions, a classic symptom of anxiety.

Basically saying everything relates back to philosophy.

Philosophy affects the way we think which is then used for the more physical sciences. Philosophy is necessary before we can look elsewhere.

I think people don't like thinking about philosophy because it is alarming to realize how much we don't know or understand and this lack of knowledge makes us uncomfortable so we avoid these questions.

Things that aren't often considered because they aren't as relevant to everyday life but are just as important.

We try to understand things to make peace of the world because of our deep seated fear of the unknown. We want to know why things happen to ease our minds.

Reminds me of the Freudian "Id".

I don't really understand the concept of the "not-Self".

A close-minded and fearful outlook that would not embrace change or questioning of beliefs

Experiences and previous assumptions get in the way of philosophical thinking because they create close-minded people who think they already have answers.

Keep asking questions in hope that someday we might be able to find an answer.

"This is why everyone hates moral philosophy professors!" Is a line from the television the show The Good place because philosophy provides so many questions and very few answers.

Practicality is subjective. I think we often forget that someone decided what was practical and everyone else went along and followed this definition of the word but there are people who have a different accepted meaning.

I think this is a really important comparison to make in the abortion debate, especially when the fetus is at risk of hurting the mother. The courts are unwilling to force people to help others at the risk of harming themselves, or even if it doesn't themselves, they have the right to say no when it comes to their bodies but this law does not extend to abortion.

I agree, I think this sets a dangerous precedent about the rights that people who can't even call the shots anymore.

I believe this could mean that theoretically it could be possible to declare mentally retarded people dead which is a terrifying thought.

It is interesting that as we progress further in history and start to move away from strictly observable qualifications that the loss of consciousness has become a standard for death.

"the end of important bodily functions" such as pumping blood.

This would be a strong argument for those who are pro-life. If we as a society believed that a person is a person from the moment of conception it would be much harder to justify abortion given that essentially this fetus is just as much as a person as a college student, for instance.

I think it's important to acknowledge the shortcomings and deviation that can occur from this definition while still believing it to be mostly correct because of the important qualifications it actually addresses.

The nature of being

EMERGENT PROPERTY A new characteristic or function enabled by the interactions among the parts of a system. https://dlc.dcccd.edu/biology1-1/emergent-properties

"Modern neuroscience is finding connections between mental and brain states"

Why is it so common and likely therefore important in most religions that death is not the end of being, just the end of life? Is it that religious groups and individuals fear the end of life or they have to believe there is some greater purpose?

"possible that it is immoral"

A lot of the moral questions in philosophy remind me of the moral questions asked in psychology. For example the experiment of little albert where a loud noise was used to condition a toddler was ethical at the time but now it wouldn't be seen as such. Philosophy poses similar questions and asks about what is viewed as moral.