Timeline for Is there evidence that brain and mind are separate?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 15, 2017 at 20:37 | comment | added | yters | @KeeganKeplinger there is also a multitude of evidence the mind affects the brain and the rest of the body. Trivially, our day to day choices determine the actions of our body. So, on the contrary, the preponderance of empirical evidence says the mind is not a product of the brain. | |
| Jul 21, 2014 at 16:48 | comment | added | Speldosa | What these studies show is only that the brain has influence over the contents of the mind. However, if that influence is total or not is still, empirically, an open question. Only in the light of a presupposed philosophical hypothesis (such as that mind equals brain) could such empirical results be counted as being in favour of the hypothesis, in a form of probabilistic manner. | |
| Aug 2, 2012 at 15:44 | comment | added | Keegan Keplinger | I did not dismiss philosophy as pseudoscience. Philosophy is part of science (in fact empiricism is the philosophical stance of most scientists). I also talked about scientific realism, another philosophical stance of scientists. By "prove" I just mean gather evidence that is suggestive of, not the mathematical definition of poof. | |
| Aug 2, 2012 at 14:13 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | @Xurtio I want to upvote this answer, but I can't because of your nonchalant dismissal of philosophy as pseudoscience. There is a huge difference between pseudoscience (which tries to make scientifically testable and usually false in the most silly ways claims, and ground itself in science) and well practiced philosophy which tries to provide a completely different type or argument and is usually painfully clear about when it is making scientifically testable claims, ad when it makes non-testable one. Further, you can't "prove" anything in science... this isn't math. | |
| Aug 2, 2012 at 14:03 | comment | added | Artem Kaznatcheev | @degausser I don't think you have an understanding of how vast the scientific literature is, scientists already spend most of their days reading, and still have no chance to cover anything but a fraction of their very specialized sub-sub-sub-field. The wikipedia article already goes to decent lengths to answer your question. | |
| Aug 2, 2012 at 1:48 | comment | added | Joshua | I also do not know of any such studies. Slightly obnoxious or not, @Xurtio did so for good reason, I think. I know a lot about certain psychological constructs, but even on areas I consider myself expert, I could never claim to come close to knowing the entire literature. Studies published in other languages are not always translated. Old studies are not necessarily published online (although many are). And all of that does not even get into the issue that multiple keywords may be used for the same general idea. | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 21:16 | comment | added | user1006 | I do appreciate the answer, but the obliqueness is completely unnecessary and slightly obnoxious as it was a straight forward question. Peer reviewed studies are all recorded and would be archived. I am wondering if anyone has heard of anything worth investigating | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 21:06 | comment | added | Keegan Keplinger | You're question, qualified with "for sure absolutely" makes me think that you still don't understand the difficulty of proving a negative. Even with your previous qualifier, "humans have not come across the answer" is hard to prove. I'm just one person, I can't speak for all humans. I can't say "for sure absolutely no studies" and no one human can. There's lots of studies out there. All you will ever have is a lack of evidence or a lack of people reporting there's no such studies. Though I can't even see how you'd even devise a test to prove mind and brain are separate. | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 20:10 | comment | added | user1006 | For sure absolutely no studies though? | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 20:08 | comment | added | user1006 | Thanks for the answer. I will say, though, that saying "there is no evidence" is always perfectly valid if humans have not yet come across the answer. Where you would fall into trouble with trying to prove a negative is if you said something was definitively "impossible". | |
| Aug 1, 2012 at 19:55 | history | answered | Keegan Keplinger | CC BY-SA 3.0 |