Why You Are Not Your Brain.

[Jim__]

This is a brief excerpt from a short article in Scientific American blogs on George Lakoff and his ideas on how the body and mind interact:

Embodied cognition, the idea that the mind is not only connected to the body but that the body influences the mind, is one of the more counter-intuitive ideas in cognitive science. In sharp contrast is dualism, a theory of mind famously put forth by Rene Descartes in the 17th century when he claimed that “there is a great difference between mind and body, inasmuch as body is by nature always divisible, and the mind is entirely indivisible… the mind or soul of man is entirely different from the body.” In the proceeding centuries, the notion of the disembodied mind flourished. From it, western thought developed two basic ideas: reason is disembodied because the mind is disembodied and reason is transcendent and universal. However, as George Lakoff and Rafeal Núñez explain:

Cognitive science calls this entire philosophical worldview into serious question on empirical grounds… <the mind> arises from the nature of our brains, bodies, and bodily experiences. This is not just the innocuous and obvious claim that we need a body to reason; rather, it is the striking claim that the very structure of reason itself comes from the details of our embodiment… Thus, to understand reason we must understand the details of our visual system, our motor system, and the general mechanism of neural binding.

What exactly does this mean? It means that our cognition isn’t confined to our cortices. That is, our cognition is influenced, perhaps determined by, our experiences in the physical world. This is why we say that something is “over our heads” to express the idea that we do not understand; we are drawing upon the physical inability to not see something over our heads and the mental feeling of uncertainty. Or why we understand warmth with affection; as infants and children the subjective judgment of affection almost always corresponded with the sensation of warmth, thus giving way to metaphors such as “I’m warming up to her.”

Embodied cognition has a relatively short history. Its intellectual roots date back to early 20th century philosophers Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and John Dewey and it has only been studied empirically in the last few decades. One of the key figures to empirically study embodiment is University of California at Berkeley professor George Lakoff.

more ...

[nuxvomica]

1. I was actually looking for something like this

I had heard a discussion on the radio a while back about the idea of emotions residing primarily in the body. They talked about how quadriplegics evidence a reduced fear reaction because most of what we experience as fear is a bodily reaction. I've been anxious to read more about this, especially in terms of what these ideas may mean for fiction writing. I've been trying to make my description of emotional states more body-centric because I think that is more evocative for the reader (eg. "he felt a flutter in his chest" instead of "he felt anxious").
Interesting stuff, especially the discussion of metaphors.

[RagAss]

2. Yes...in my own primitive experience,........

The world that I viewed when I was 20 years old as a 260lb. college football player was very different from the world that I view today as a 175lb middle aged man who limps from several old knee surgeries.....it's a scarier place.

[dmallind]

3. Title is a bit misleading.

The detail essentially says we ARE our brains, but our plastic brains are molded and changed by experiences of other physiological systems. The title alone could imply there is a separate self that is distinct and independent from the brain.

[unblock]

4. in fact it should be "why you are not your MIND".

the brain being a key part of the body.

[Jim__]

6. No, the title is not misleading.

Part of what they are saying is that if your brain lived in a vat, it would not be you.

You can read an excerpt from Philosophy in the Flesh here. Notice that it is talking about human concepts and human reason being body- and brain-dependent.

Also from the introduction to the same book - my bolding:

Reason is not disembodied, as the tradition has largely held, but arises from the nature of our brains, bodies, and bodily experience. This is not just the innocuous and obvious claim that we need a body to reason; rather, it is the striking claim that the very structure of reason itself comes from the details of our embodiment. The same neural and cognitive mechanisms that allow us to perceive and move around also create our conceptual systems and modes of reason. Thus, to understand reason we must understand the details of our visual system, our motor system, and the general mechanisms of neural binding. In summary, reason is not, in any way, a transcendent feature of the universe or of disembodied mind. Instead, it is shaped crucially by the peculiarities of our human bodies, by the remarkable details of the neural structure of our brains, and by the specifics of our everyday functioning in the world.

[qazplm]

7. to which I'd say baloney

yes it would still be you. Basically this article says that how we conceptualize and communicate is influenced by gasp our experiences, and that includes things like our current health, how we move our bodies, etc.

That is NOT the same thing as saying you wouldn't be you if you were just a brain in a vat, particularly if you've already experienced all of those things. You wouldn't cease understanding metaphors like over your head, or warming up, if your brain were removed and placed into a vat, still alive and able to think.

Now, obviously you'd need a means of communication with the outside world and the ability to perceive sight and sound would be pretty nice, but you'd still be you even if you'd eventually go crazy without some external stimuli, but if one can manage to keep a brain alive in a vat, it would seem those other issues would be relatively minor comparatively.

I suspect 1000 years from now folks will be mostly artificial with only the brain and perhaps a few other things being still biological.

[Jim__]

8. You can say whatever you want. McNerney spoke with Lakoff and Davis ...

... and his claim is that they are saying you are not your brain - the vat example is mine. But, a quick glance at some excerpts from Lakoff's book supports McNerney's claim - that's what they're saying. I used the brain in a vat example, and I'll stand by it. Based on what they're saying, if you could remove your physiological systems and keep your brain alive, the brain would not be you - not worth arguing about since we can't test it.

This claim says nothing about the biological requirements for consciousness, nor what will exist in the future.

[qazplm]

9. Lakoff is a linguist

which means he knows as much about physiological systems as I do.

So citing him as authority isn't very persuasive. What they are saying isn't true simply because they are saying and if it isn't worth arguing about then it isn't worth posting in the first place, and yet you did.

And yes, you would be "you" without your physiological systems so long as you could provide sensory input to the brain.

[Jim__]

10. The article cites Lakoff's book as a basis for its discussion.

The title of the article is about that discussion. This subthread is about the title of the article.

[qazplm]

11. I'm responding to you

"But, a quick glance at some excerpts from Lakoff's book supports McNerney's claim"

And a quick look on wiki shows that Lakoff is a central and leading proponent of this theory, which is in contradiction to other theories.

[Jim__]

12. No theory of the nature of the human mind has universal acceptance.

That has nothing to do with what is being discussed in this subthread which is whether or not McNerney's title was misleading. It wasn't. McNerney's title accurately reflects the ideas of cognitive embodiment.

[qazplm]

14. pretty sure

I was directly addressing the theory and not a title.

[Humanist_Activist]

17. Try convincing the brain in the vat of that...

heh, I made a rhyme. Anyways, the fact of the matter is that our memories are stored in the brain, and being that we are a collection of our memories, you would still be you, regardless of the container your brain is in, whether its in the human skull, or something humans built.

In addition, I imagine there would be altering affects while in a vat, for obvious reasons, but this wouldn't change what is essentially you. Indeed, if technology allows for us to extract intact brains to save someone's life from a failing body, it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility that you wouldn't necessarily be aware of it. Being in a vat may be no different in your perception than being in your skull. Body awareness is something our brains already have, and using technology, you can be fooled into thinking you still are in your original body by simulating a body for you to use.

[tinrobot]

5. We also have a brain in our gut

It's called the enteric nervous system and it has about as many neurons as a cat's brain. It also produces a lot of serotonin and other mind-altering chemicals.

[snagglepuss]

19. As I started to read the thread I recall reading about the brain in the stomach

but didn't know it's name or much about it then BINGO your post. Very obliging of you to fill me in:)

[Moe Shinola]

13. Thanks for posting this!

So interesting.

[bananas]

15. What the body was made for: the heart was made to be broken

by Snow & Voices
Track 4 of http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001AUJVXG/ref=dm_sp_alb
"It's like love is leaving all the time"

edit to add:
Music makes use of the connections between mind and body.

[Kablooie]

16. What? I'm not a disembodied mind dragging a a pile of meat around the earth?

Damn. It always seemed so poetic.

[bananas]

18. Math, Science, Engineering, and Art are very visceral

One example in the popular media is the old tv show "Monk", where as he was thinking his hands would move in concordance with his thoughts.

Engineers build small-scale models which they can pick up and hold and look at from different perspectives,

Mathematicians also use abstract visualization which of course can't be described in the simple linear discrete text of a message board.

Etc etc.