Can anyone make any sense of this argument

[Laurens]

I was discussing the topic 'you are not your brain' with a theist recently and their argument was this:

You cannot remove 55% of a thought, but you can have 55% of a brain. The reason you can't take away 55% of a thought is because they are non-physical, but the brain is physical, therefore you are not your brain.

I'm kinda stuck on what he means by the fact that you can't quantify a thought in a percentage and why this means its non-physical. I can't say that this post is 48% long, that doesn't mean its not physical, I can't say I had 39% sleep last night etc. To me 55% of a thought makes no sense and doesn't prove anything. Am I right?

 

[tuxbox]

I think that person is referring to hemispherectomy.

 

[Laurens]

I think that person is referring to hemispherectomy.

I can make sense of that because 55% of a brain can be compared to 100% of a brain

But 55% of a thought? What the fuck does that mean?

 

[Frenger]

The only thing I can think of is that like said above, you can have a whole hemisphere removed and still be able to function. As we have a standard amount of brain, 1, removing half of it would indeed leave 55% of it.

The reason you can't have 55% of thought is because there is no standard measurement of thought.

I'm unsure as to what his point is but the bare bones of the argument makes sense.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well, from my understanding, the person making the argument is wrong. Thought isn't spread through the brain evenly. Removing 45% of the brain (but not of the whole brain) would remove actually remove some thoughts, as well as memories. There are small portions of the brain that cannot be touched, the larger portions (the part that appears split) can be divided with little loss in function, but the though processes for that part are diminished because they would have to be relocated, and we know that pathway distance does effect quality.

Removing even a small portion of the important part will kill you.

My sources for this are scattered so far across the web so take it as you want. It's a collage style point as I was more focused on how the neural pathways worked so didn't even pay attention to the names of the portions of the brain but it may give you a starting point for real research.

 

[devilsadvocate]

I can make sense of that because 55% of a brain can be compared to 100% of a brain

But 55% of a thought? What the fuck does that mean?

I guess that's exactly his point. Thoughts are so different type of things in so different realm that trying to handle them by same methods we do for matter doesn't make any sense.

He might have an additional point about soul being indivisible, ie. simple with no moving parts.

In any case, I think he's doing a bad job. There are much more convincing arguments that shed doubt to equating brain states with mental states.

 

[Frenger]

Well, from my understanding, the person making the argument is wrong. Thought isn't spread through the brain evenly. Removing 45% of the brain (but not of the whole brain) would remove actually remove some thoughts, as well as memories. There are small portions of the brain that cannot be touched, the larger portions (the part that appears split) can be divided with little loss in function, but the though processes for that part are diminished because they would have to be relocated, and we know that pathway distance does effect quality.

Removing even a small portion of the important part will kill you.

My sources for this are scattered so far across the web so take it as you want. It's a collage style point as I was more focused on how the neural pathways worked so didn't even pay attention to the names of the portions of the brain but it may give you a starting point for real research.

That's not exactly true. Evidence supports that as long as it is in relative infancy say for argument before the age of seven, you can live pretty comfortably without 50% of your brain. As long as it is all removed from one side, so say the left hemisphere there should be little difference.

Like you say, your brain while developing will make new neural pathways but there isn't anything to suggest that there is a loss of function. Studies have suggested that the patients who have had a hemisphere removed show no signs of loss of hearing, sight, love, compassion, abstract thoughts, mathematics or any other critical faculty.

Obviously the later in life a person is the more risky this kind of precedure would be.

So, the moral of this story is, if your are going to remove a large portion of someones brain, make sure you do it while they are young, and for god's sake make sure you stick to one side!

 

[devilsadvocate]

Frenger,

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think you can take the left hemisphere out, at least not from a ~7 year old. Right one is kind of useless though.

 

[Frenger]

Frenger,

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think you can take the left hemisphere out, at least not from a ~7 year old. Right one is kind of useless though.

No, I think you're right. oops. I just murdered a 7 year old :/

 

[Laurens]

My main problem with it is just because you can't quantify thought as a percentage, but you can with the brain, doesn't mean that thought is not the product of the brain.

To me that is a non sequitur.

 

[Frenger]

My main problem with it is just because you can't quantify thought as a percentage, but you can with the brain, doesn't mean that thought is not the product of the brain.

To me that is a non sequitur.

Oh yeah, that sentiment is complete horse s**t.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

When he finds thoughts disembodied from brains, let me know.

 

[Prolescum]

When he finds thoughts disembodied from brains, let me know.

^^^ :lol:

 

[devilsadvocate]

If that really is his point, then obviously he's got very naive understanding of the brain. As pointed out, brains don't work as a one lump of a unit, but consists of parts with different tasks. So, it is not the case that taking, say 20% of the brain matter out, makes you 80% as efficient "at thinking", but rather unable to do some, possibly very specialized, cognitive processing at all. Better analogy would, instead of dividing brains like homogenous lump. would be think of it as like dismantling a car part by part. Doing that doesn't make the car run at 95%, 90% and so on, but rather disable some features, like headlights, or, if you take a vital part off, makes the whole thing unable to run.

I understand you know this already, Laurens, but if that kind of misunderstanding is really behind the argument he gave, then that's how I'd go about correcting it.

Otherwise, ask him how he thinks immaterial consciousness, "the I", or soul interacts with the material. When he drinks a glass of whiskey, does he figure his "soul" gets drunk and if so, how does this interaction take place from purely material causes to consciousness or soul. Or how does the intention of raising his hand transmits from the immaterial to the material brain and body. I have yet heard a convincing answer to this problem, and I suspect when he tackles the question, even if not admitting it, he realizes what ever he comes up with is not very convincing. At the very least, hopefully, it'll make him appreciate the weight of the problem.

Alternatively you could question him what he thinks the soul is and what it's relation is to his personality. We know that brain injury can cause total loss of memories and that brain trauma, especially to prefrontal cortex, can radically change personality, and so on. Once you take all of those things that are physical brain-related, does the concept of soul/consciousness contain anything important in relation to identity (what makes you, you)?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Umm... just remove the front 10% of the brain and you more or less remove the capacity for thought entirely.

 

[Laurens]

Thanks for the input guys.

I've asked some of those questions you suggested devlisadvocate, and also asked what he thought would happen if you did remove 55% of someone's brain (just to see if he really does have any clue what he's on about).

I'll see what happens next.

 

[devilsadvocate]

Umm... just remove the front 10% of the brain and you more or less remove the capacity for thought entirely.

We don't want Elvis to leave the building completely, we need him present, but in crutches. Otherwise, what's there to prevent the mind stuff believer from saying that of course there's no capability of thought anymore, since you damaged the brain enough to shoo away the ghost?

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Umm... just remove the front 10% of the brain and you more or less remove the capacity for thought entirely.

We don't want Elvis to leave the building completely, we need him present, but in crutches. Otherwise, what's there to prevent the mind stuff believer from saying that of course there's no capability of thought anymore, since you damaged the brain enough to shoo away the ghost?

You're right. Let's just destroy his ability to recognize his mother and annihilate his sense of empathy, and then see if he thinks the mind is separate from the brain.

 

[Laurens]

You're right. Let's just destroy his ability to recognize his mother and annihilate his sense of empathy, and then see if he thinks the mind is separate from the brain.

I've raised similar points with him, and the response is generally; 'well if you disrupt the receiver, your reception will be affected'.

I can only point out that this is unfalsifiable nonsense...

 

[DepricatedZero]

cretinist bullshit alarm is going off here

I have 55% of a thought all the time

Ever get halfway through a sentence and forget what you were saying?

That.