Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
BRAIN AND BEHAVIOUR _LECTURE ONE (Mind Brain problem (our perceptions are…
BRAIN AND BEHAVIOUR _LECTURE ONE
brain organised on levels
molecules>Synapses>Neurons>Networks>Maps>systems>CNS
central nervous system
Mind Brain problem
IS mind/Brain relationship like a PC?
relationship like PC- software hardware?
Is mind separate from brain?
#
#
what is the relationship? mind/body
CAN PEOPLE BE OBJECTIVE HERE
our perceptions are not always correct
Eliminative materialism -IE optical illusions (Francis Crick, 1979)
suggests that folk(functionalism) be replaced by scientific not subjective explanations of the mind in neuroscience.
EXAMPLES
cognition ergo sum? I think therefore I am?
behaviour and experience can only be explained on a bio level
no mental states just brain states
counter intuitive- we have mental states because we experience them - subjective experience
good argument against EM
Sperry
the divided self
epilepsy patients : surgery to prevent siezures - from spreading thorugh the corpus callosum - hemipsheres split on a higher level- seemed normal but two hemispheres behaved differently both controlling the body differently- left hand picked up paer right put it down- independent controls - two independent streams of consciousness one in each hemisphere
our subjective experience of unified self is wrong a are other introspections
ie. our unified sense of self could be false
common sense understanding misguided
#
schools of thought
Functionalism
#
form of property dualism
response to beahaviourism- answer to...
#
mental state explained by higher functions
information processing occurs at level of abstraction independant of the physical composition
all functional systems can be implemented in any hardware
John Searle against Functioanlism
"the mind is the software of the brain"- Ned Block (1995)
Max Coltheart (2004)
no knowledge of the hardware (ie the brain) will tell you anything about the software (cognitive processing) the brain runs
Brain cannot be used as evidence for or against
john Searle also argues again functionalism
against the idea that consciousness can be implemented in any computer
simply being able to emulate the functions of the brain is insufficient to attribute the cognitive states of conscious people
computers could never possess conscious states
thought experiment based on the Turing Test
Searle's experiment-the Chinese room
native English speaker knows no Chinese locked in a room with Chinese symbols with a book of instructions for manipulating the symbols
1 more item...
instructions=programme
box of symbols =database
Alan Turing test
person talks to another and to a computer but does not know which one is which
machine tries to make the person mistake the computer for the other person
person tries to help interrogator correctly id the machine
need to be able to conduct empirical analysis of these models - can use FMRI as evidence for or against cognitive models
Behaviouralism
learning organisms convert inputs to outputs
form of materialism- no independance in the mind
#
Free will=illusion
behaviour determined by enviromnet , genetics trhough reinforcement and association
Materialism
Occams razor
simplest explanation is the best
only thing that exists is matter
therefore the mind is must be property of matter (the brain)
all things are matter and result of material interactions
Reductionism
#
Dualism
#
Descartes (Cartesian Dualism)
Mind and body linked - but believed seperate
body likened to machine
#
SCALE: dualism --------Monism
identity theory: mind - matter in absolute sense
Property dualism
mind states come from brain states but we cant explain mind states through brain states.
Cartesian idea- separating the observer from the observed
subjective experience - fundamental-- know mental states exist due to experiance
mind states have properties distinct form brains
Dennet citacism ( Explaining consciousness, 1991)
materialism prevails over dualism-
fatal flaw in this - law of physics like how can caspar float through walls yet catch a falling object- be physical and non physical, how can mind elude physical measurement but control the body- anything that can move a physical object must be a physical thing
mind is the brain
if they are distinct things they still must interact
locus of interaction - pineal gland
drawn as oval in the brain connected to eyes
how does information go from here to mind
brainwaves have no physical mass?- neuron firing
action potentials
Neurophilosophy
greening neuroscience and greying philosophy- neuroscience is advanced enough to explore the mind body problem
seeks to explain the mind - observable evidence from physical world
assumes that mental states and things like learning are functions of the physical brain
Reductionism
complex phenomena can be explained in terms of interactions between simpler phenomena
explain mental phenomena in terms of physical events in brain
argued by N reductionism is essential to understand mind in the brain
#
Churchland-need to look at behaviour and biological data-need to understand both
#
Churchland chapter 7
intertheoretic reduction
one theory T1 is said to reduce to another theory T2 if T1 is deducable from T2
reductionism to explain the mind brain theory = argued
folk psychology
similar to consciousness-theortical framework-questioned
ie earth is not flat but we are guided to see this- or surfaces appear to be solid but its mostly space between atoms and molecules
based on concepts that are based on language (syntax and semantics of belief and desire
FUNCTIONALIST PSYCH IS FOLK
#
explains relationship between two theories at different levels IE a higher level theory in terms of a fundamental lower level theory
EXAMPLES
laws of mendelian -inheritance reduced to genetics
mendals law of heredity - now obsolete due to explaintion of classical genetics
higher level theory reduced and eliminated lower level fundamental theory explains causal effects
Classical optics reduced to Quantum optics
classical: geometry of light - refractions etc.
Quantum: light = particle behaviour: Planck- exchange between energy and light and matter only occur in discrete amounts- Quanta
light is electromagnetic radiation - mental events are neural events
Classical: light behaves like a wave- keplar: eye focuses light it moves in straight line
learning reduced to neural information processing
Rescorla-wagner-
reliable higher level explanation of how various factors account for learning during CC
learning described here :
David Marr
theory said hebbian synapses work in the cerebellum
but learning is processing of information in neural pathways
now know that classical conditioning information processed in the synapse that learn within cerebellar neurons
learning theory reduced to neural theory with empirical evidence
Churchland chapter 8
reductionism doesn't ignore that humans are introspective but accept s this- can this defend dualism
#
churchland chapter 9
mind brain theories need interactions between psychology and neuroscience
Emergance
triani and tuci (2009)
ant cant do much alone- but colony addaptice resilliant- much like neurons
neruons interact with other neruons to complete highly complex cognitive processes
swarm intelligence in the brain
whole greater than sum of its parts
complex behaviour = simple units following simple rules
DENNETT?
#
also property dualism
#
or non reductive physicalism- high level phenomena emerge from lower level ones but cannot be explained in terms of properties
strong E- high level phenomena emergant respective to the lower level domain but truths concerning phenomena can only be deduciable from the high level truths not from LL
weak E: high level phenomena emerge from low level domain- but truths are unexpected but deduciable given priniciples governing low level d.
which makes more sense to do with the mind?
consciousness- emergent property
weak e , reductionism and Neurop: churchland-whole can be explained by parts despite being bigger - reductionist-
#
Strong E and Irreducibility- whole emerges from sum of parts - not impossible to reverse this - explain whole in parts - qualities of whole traced to system components
USED AGAINST CHURCHLAND REDUCTIOSIM
#