We present a hypothetical process of mind coalescence, where arti cial connections are created between two or more brains. This might simply allow for an improved form of communication. At the other extreme, it might merge the minds into one in a process that can be thought of as a reverse split-brain operation. We propose that one way mind coalescence might happen is via an exocortex, a prosthetic extension of the biological brain which integrates with the (...) brain as seamlessly as parts of the biological brain integrate with each other. An exocortex may also prove to be the easiest route for mind uploading, as a person's personality gradually moves away from the aging biological brain and onto the exocortex. Memories might also be copied and shared even without minds being permanently merged. Over time, the borders of personal identity may become loose or even unnecessary. (shrink)

(June 2013) “The mind-body problem in cognitive neuroscience”, Philosophia Scientiae 17/2, Gabriel Vacariu and Mihai Vacariu (eds.): 1. William Bechtel (Philosophy, Center for Chronobiology, and Interdisciplinary Program in Cognitive Science University of California, San Diego) “The endogenously active brain: the need for an alternative cognitive architecture” 2. Rolls T. Edmund (Oxford Centre for Computational Neuroscience, Oxford, UK) “On the relation between the mind and the brain: a neuroscience perspective” 3. Cees van Leeuwen (University of Leuven, Belgium; (...) Riken Brain Science Institute, Japan) “Brain and mind” 4. Kari Theurer (Trinity College) and John Bickle (Philosophy, Mississippi State University) “What’s old is new again: Kemeny-Oppenheim reduction at work in current molecular neuroscience” 5. Bernard Andrieu (Staps Université de Lorraine) “Sentir son cerveau? Les dispositifs neuro-expérientiels en 1er personne” 6. Corey Maley and Gualtiero Piccinini (Philosophy, University of Missouri – St. Louis) “Get the latest upgrade: Functionalism 6.3.1” 7. Paula Droege (Philosophy, Pennsylvania State University) “Memory and consciousness” 8. Gabriel Vacariu and Mihai Vacariu (Philosophy, University of Bucharest) “Troubles with cognitive neuroscience”. (shrink)

To maintain my neutral monist or multi-aspect view of human reality (or indeed to defend the Cartesian dualism assumed by Puccetti & Dykes, it is wrong to relate the mind to the brain alone. A person's mind should be related to the physical environment, including the body, in addition to the brain. Furthermore, we are unlikely to understand the detailed functioning of an individual brain without knowing the history of its interactions with the external and (...) internal environments during that person's life, or indeed any inherited neurogenomics (circuitry innately adapted to ecology. (shrink)

The materialist version of the mind/brain identity theory has met with considerable challenges from philosophers of mind. The author first dispenses with a popular objection to the theory based on the law of indiscernibility of identicals. By means of discussing the vexatious problem of phenomenal qualities, he explores how the debate may be advanced by seeing each dualist and monist ontology through the lens of an evolutionary epistemology. The author suggests that by regarding each ontology as the (...) core of a scientific research programme, each of these logically irrefutable hypotheses can be tested rationally. (shrink)

The tendency to draw mind-brain dichotomies and evaluate mental disorders dualistically arises in both laypeople and mental health professionals, leads to biased judgments, and contributes to mental health stigmatization. This paper offers a theory identifying an underlying source of these evaluations in social practice. According to this theory, dualistic evaluations are rooted in two mechanisms by which we represent and evaluate the beliefs of others in folk psychology and theory of mind: the doxastic conception of mental disorders (...) and doxastic voluntarism. Tracing these origins contributes to our understanding of mental state representation in cognitive science and philosophy of psychiatry, the concept of belief in philosophy of mind, and may help improve patient experience and treatment in light of social stigmatization and bias toward mental illness. (shrink)

The mind-body problem arises because all theories about mind-brain connections are too deeply obscure to gain general acceptance. This essay suggests a clear, simple, mind-brain solution that avoids all these perennial obscurities. (1) It does so, first of all, by reworking Strawson and Stoljar’s views. They argue that while minds differ from observable brains, minds can still be what brains are physically like behind the appearances created by our outer senses. This could avoid many obscurities. (...) But to clearly do so, it must first clear up its own deep obscurity about what brains are like behind appearances, and how they create the mind’s privacy, unity and qualia – all of which observable brains lack. (2) This can ultimately be done with a clear, simple assumption: our consciousness is the physical substance that certain brain events consist of beyond appearances. For example, the distinctive electrochemistry in nociceptor ion channels wholly consists of pain. This rejects that pain is a brain property: instead it’s a brain substance that occupies space in brains, and exerts forces by which it’s indirectly detectable via EEGs. (3) This assumption is justified because treating pains as physical substances avoids the perennial obscurities in mind-body theories. For example, this ‘clear physicalism’ avoids the obscure nonphysical pain of dualism and its spinoffs. Pain is instead an electrochemical substance. It isn’t private because it’s hidden in nonphysical minds, but instead because it’s just indirectly detected in the physical world in ways that leave its real nature hidden. (4) Clear physicalism also avoids puzzling reductions of private pains into more fundamental terms of observable brain activity. Instead pain is a hidden, private substance underlying this observable activity. Also, pain is fundamental in itself, for it’s what some brain activity fundamentally consists of. This also avoids reductive idealist claims that the world just exists in the mind. They yield obscure views on why we see a world that isn’t really out there. (5) Clear physicalism also avoids obscure claims that pain is information processing which is realizable in multiple hardwares (not just in electrochemistry). Molecular neuroscience now casts doubt on multiple realization. Also, it’s puzzling how abstract information gets ‘realized’ in brains and affects brains (compare ancient quandries on how universals get embodied in matter). A related idea is that of supervenient properties in nonreductive physicalism. They involve obscure overdetermination and emergent consciousness. Clear physicalism avoids all this. Pain isn’t an abstract property obscurely related to brains – it’s simply a substance in brains. (6) Clear physicalism also avoids problems in neuroscience. Neuroscience explains the mind’s unity in problematic ways using synchrony, attention, etc.. Clear physicalism explains unity in terms of intense neuroelectrical activity reaching continually along brain circuits as a conscious whole. This fits evidence that just highly active, highly connected circuits are fully conscious. Neuroscience also has problems explaining how qualia are actually encoded by brains, and how to get from these abstract codes to actual pain, fear, etc.. Clear physicalism explains qualia electrochemically, using growing evidence that both sensory and emotional qualia correlate with very specific electrical channels in neural receptors. Multiple-realization advocates overlook this important evidence. (7) Clear physicalism thus bridges the mind-brain gulf by showing how brains can possess the mind’s qualia, unity and privacy – and how minds can possess features of brain activity like occupying space and exerting forces. This unorthodox nonreductive physicalism may be where physicalism leads to when stripped of all its reductive and nonreductive obscurities. It offers a clear, simple mind-body solution by just filling in what neuroscience is silent about, namely, what brain matter is like behind perceptions of it. (shrink)

In the last year or so (and going back many decades) there has been extensive claims by major computational scientists, engineers, and others that AGI (artificial general intelligence) is 5 or 10 years away, but without a scintilla of scientific evidence, for a broad body of these claims: Computers will become conscious, have a “theory of mind,” think and reason, will become more intelligent than humans, and so on. But the claims are science fiction, not science. -/- This article (...) reviews evidence for the following three (3) propositions using extensive body of scientific research and related sources from the cognitive and neurosciences; evolutionary evidence; linguistics; data science; comparative psychology; self-driving cars, and robotics; and the learning sciences. (1) Do computing machines think or reason? (2) Are computing machines sentient or conscious? (3) Do computing machines have a theory of mind? (shrink)

Are modules of the mind mechanisms? What role does the New Mechanistic philosophy of science play in describing the architecture of the mind/brain? In this paper, I answer both questions. I argue that cognitive science uses two types of account: those targeting mechanisms-as-systems (“modules of the mind”) and those targeting mechanisms-as-causings. These types have quite different metaphysical implications and should not be conflated. Examples of the face-recognition system and mechanisms for placebo analgesia illustrate the differences. For (...) partial explanations in cognitive science, I recommend using a minimal notion of mechanism. Last, I argue we ought to be treating the New Mechanistic philosophy as a toolbox. (shrink)

Most work in cognitive science, whether computationally or biologically based, relies on the idea of ‘unconscious representations.’ I argue that there are no such things. In contrast, conscious states do represent objects outside of the agent. My second main thesis concerns the ‘explanatory gap’ between brain states and mental states. I propose an analogy to enhance our understanding of just what is required to close the explanatory gap; I argue that a new science is needed. There is third main (...) thesis, related to the second. Of all the currently available approaches to the study of brain activity, only nonlinear dynamics, chaos theory in particular, has a unique characteristic sufficient to close the explanatory gap. Every other approach to the study of the brain appears doomed to failure in this regard. Identification of an additional feature of chaotic systems provides the framework for the explanation of another conundrum, mental causation. Furthermore, given the chaotic model of the dynamics of perception arising from Walter J. Freeman’s work, it appears that emotion plays a central role in perception. The application of chaos theory to brain activity dovetails with my first thesis, as nonlinear dynamics does not require state transitions from representations to representations, yet it has the resources to account for the representational nature of conscious states. (shrink)

Critical Review of Searle's Minds, Brains and Science.

This paper disputes a common definition of token identity theory. It also observes that within the philosophical literature there are two significantly different definitions of token identity theory that are commonly used.

It is a common idea, and an element in many legal systems, that people can deserve punishment when they commit criminal (or immoral) actions. A standard philosophical objection to this retributivist idea about punishment is that if human choices and actions are determined by previous events and the laws of nature, then we are not free in the sense required to be morally responsible for our actions, and therefore cannot deserve blame or punishment. It has recently been suggested that this (...) argument can be backed up by neuroscience, since neuroscientific explanations of human behavior leave no room for non-determined free actions. In this thesis, an argument of this sort is discussed. According to this argument, that I call “the Revision Argument”, we should revise the legal system so that any retributivist justification of punishment is removed. I examine some objections to the Revision Argument according to which compatibilism about free will and responsibility is a morally acceptable basis of retributive punishment. I argue that these objections have difficulties in providing a plausible account of the relevant difference between people who deserve punishment for their actions and people who do not. Therefore, I argue that they fail to refute the conclusion of the Revision Argument. (shrink)

The mind-body relationship has vexed philosophers of mind for quite a long time. Different theories of mind have offered different points of view about the interaction between the two, but none of them seem free of ambiguities and questions. This paper attempts to use a mathematical model for mind-body relationship. The model may generate some questions to think about this relationship from the viewpoint of operator theory.

In the philosophy of mind, neuroscience, and psychology, the causal relationship between phenomenal consciousness, mentation, and brain states has always been a matter of debate. On the one hand, material monism posits consciousness and mind as pure brain epiphenomena. One of its most stringent lines of reasoning relies on a ‘loss-of-function lesion premise,’ according to which, since brain lesions and neurochemical modifications lead to cognitive impairment and/or altered states of consciousness, there is no reason to (...) doubt the mind-brain identity. On the other hand, dualism or idealism (in one form or another) regard consciousness and mind as something other than the sole product of cerebral activity pointing at the ineffable, undefinable, and seemingly unphysical nature of our subjective qualitative experiences and its related mental dimension. Here, several neuroscientific findings are reviewed that question the idea that posits phenomenal experience as an emergent property of brain activity, and argue that the premise of material monism is based on a logical correlation-causation fallacy. While these (mostly ignored) findings, if considered separately from each other, could, in principle, be recast into a physicalist paradigm, once viewed from an integral perspective, they substantiate equally well an ontology that posits mind and consciousness as a primal phenomenon. (shrink)

There are many theories concerning the contemporary mind-brain (mind-body) problem, but these theories are fundamentally flawed because they conceive of the issue as a relationship between “mind” and “matter.” This is problematic because the notion of “matter” in this context presupposes naïve realism, meaning that what is taken as “matter” is in fact merely a phenomenon as it appears to the mind. In other words, the true nature of the mind-brain problem today is (...) actually a problem concerning the relationship between one phenomenon and another phenomenon. The real issue is the relationship between phenomena in the mind and the external reality that represents those phenomena. This paper first re-examines naïve realism, then redefines the mind-body problem as a relationship between the mind and reality, and finally attempts to resolve it by integrating Structural Realism with Eternalism in the philosophy of time. Structural Realism, by reducing “reality” to “scientific description,” can readily explain the identity of mind and brain. Eternalism, by significantly altering the concept of “causality,” also has the potential to resolve the problem of mental causation. (shrink)

This paper offers a critique of an account of explanatory integration that claims that explanations of cognitive capacities by functional analyses and mechanistic explanations can be seamlessly integrated. It is shown that achieving such explanatory integration requires that the terms designating cognitive capacities in the two forms of explanation are stable but that experimental practice in the mind-brain sciences currently is not directed at achieving such stability. A positive proposal for changing experimental practice so as to promote such (...) stability is put forward and its implications for explanatory integration are briefly considered. (shrink)

In this paper, I should like to argue against both eliminative materialism and substance/property dualism, aiming more specifically at the reductionist arguments offered by the Churchlands’ and Swinburne’s versions thereof, insofar as they undermine moral beliefs qua first-personish accounts dismissed as folk psychology by the former, as the latter regards them as supervening on natural events extendedly, that is, necessarily both ways of the biconditional linking mental and physical substances (for every A-substance x there is a B-substance y, such that (...) necessarily if y exists x exists). (shrink)

The UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas between Theise and Menas’ ideas (2016) and my ideas (2002-2008) in Physics and Cognitive Neuroscience and Philosophy (the mind-brain problem, quantum mechanics, etc.) -/- (2016) Theise D. Neil (Department of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA) and Kafatos C. Menas (bDepartment of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA; cSchmid College of Science & Technology, Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA) (2016), REVIEW - Fundamental (...) awareness: A framework for integrating science, philosophy and metaphysics, in COMMUNICATIVE & INTEGRATIVE BIOLOGY, 2016, VOL. 9, NO. 3, e1155010 (19 pages), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2016.1155010 -/- A friend of mine indicated me the strike similarities between Theise and Kafatos’ ideas in their book (Fundamental awareness: A framework for integrating science, philosophy and metaphysics) and my ideas in 2002-20008! I do not have access to this book, but I investigate the ideas that are in a review about this work. Let me introduce the abstract of that Review: -/- The ontologic framework of Fundamental Awareness proposed here assumes that non-dual Awareness is foundational to the universe, not arising from the interactions or structures of higher level phenomena. The framework allows comparison and integration of views from the three investigative domains concerned with understanding the nature of consciousness: science, philosophy, and metaphysics. In this framework, Awareness is the underlying reality, not reducible to anything else. Awareness and existence are the same. As such, the universe is non-material, self-organizing throughout, a holarchy of complementary, process driven, recursive interactions. The universe is both its own first observer and subject. Considering the world to be non-material and comprised, a priori, of Awareness is to privilege information over materiality, action over agency and to understand that qualia are not a “hard problem,” but the foundational elements of all existence. These views fully reflect main stream Western philosophical traditions, insights from culturally diverse contemplative and mystical traditions, and are in keeping with current scientific thinking, expressible mathematically. (shrink)

In this article I explore a number of questions that have not been adequately investigated in philosophy of mind circles: are minds located in the same place as the brains (or other computing machinery) supporting them? Must they exist at the same location as the body? Must they exist at the same time? Could a single mind be implemented in multiple brains, or multiple minds in a single brain? Under what conditions might a single mind persist (...) despite being implemented successively in different brains? What contributions do features of the computing machinery make to these questions, compared to the contribution made by the body and embedded point of view? Some of these questions have been touched on previously, but there hasn’t been any attempt at a systematic analysis of the various consequences that different approaches in the philosophy of mind have for how the spatiotemporal location, synchronic individuation and diachronic identity of minds relates to the spatiotemporal location, synchronic individuation, and diachronic identity of both the implementing computational machinery and the embodied embedded point of view. I make a first stab at such an analysis by discussing a variety of thought experiments in which such questions of location, individuation, and identity arise, and I explore how various approaches to understanding the mind – identity theoretic, functionalist, contentualist, embodied/embedded/extended, and so forth – would respond to such situations. A number of novel issues emerge, and some surprising affinities are revealed. (shrink)

APPENDIX: The data emerging from the clinical and brain studies described above suggest that, in the case of OCD, there are two pertinent brain mechanisms that are distinguishable both in terms of neuro-dynamics and in terms of the conscious experiences that accompany them. These mechanisms can be characterized, on anatomical and perhaps evolutionary grounds, as a lower-level and a higher-level mechanism. The clinical treatment has, when successful, an activating effect on the higher-level mechanism, and a suppressive effect on (...) the lower-level one. (shrink)

In biological terms, human consciousness appears as a feature associated with the func- tioning of the human brain. The corresponding activities of the neural network occur strictly in accord with physical laws; however, this fact does not necessarily imply that there can be a comprehensive scientific theory of conscious- ness, despite all the progress in neurobiology, neuropsychology and neurocomputation. Pre- dictions of the extent to which such a theory may become possible vary widely in the scien- tific community. There (...) are basic reasons - not only practical but also epistemological - why the brain-mind relation may never be fully “decod- able” by general finite procedures. In partic- ular self-referential features of consciousness, such as self-representations involved in strate- gic thought and dispositions, may not be resolv- able in all their essential aspects by brain analy- sis. Assuming that such limitations exist, objec- tive analysis by the methods of natural science cannot, in principle, fully encompass subjective, mental experience. (shrink)

Wittgenstein’s concepts shed light on the phenomenon of schizophrenia in at least three different ways: with a view to empathy, scientific explanation, or philosophical clarification. I consider two different “positive” wittgensteinian accounts―Campbell’s idea that delusions involve a mechanism of which different framework propositions are parts, Sass’ proposal that the schizophrenic patient can be described as a solipsist, and a Rhodes’ and Gipp’s account, where epistemic aspects of schizophrenia are explained as failures in the ordinary background of certainties. I argue that (...) none of them amounts to empathic-phenomenological understanding, but they provide examples of how philosophical concepts can contribute to scientific explanation, and to philosophical clarification respectively. (shrink)

This book is an introduction to the Free Energy Principle (FEP) and Active Inference. The FEP has been described as new paradigm with potential to unify the biological and cognitive sciences. According to the FEP, living organisms persist by minimizing their free energy (which can be variously translated as uncertainty, surprise, prediction error, or discrepancies between model and world). Active Inference means that we can resolve uncertainty (or discrepancies between model and world) in basically two ways: by perception (i.e., changing (...) our mind to fit the world) and by action (i.e., changing the world to make it fit our preferences and beliefs). The FEP and Active Inference represent a conceptual framework that may have potential to contribute to a unification of psychological science. (shrink)

Will brain imaging technology soon enable neuroscientists to read minds? We cannot answer this question without some understanding of the state of the art in neuroimaging. But neither can we answer this question without some understanding of the concept invoked by the term "mind reading." This article is an attempt to develop such understanding. Our analysis proceeds in two stages. In the first stage, we provide a categorical explication of mind reading. The categorical explication articulates empirical conditions (...) that must be satisfied if mind reading is to be achieved. In the second stage, we develop a metric for judging the proficiency of mind reading experiments. The conception of mind reading that emerges helps to reconcile folk psychological judgments about what mind reading must involve with the constraints imposed by empirical strategies for achieving it. (shrink)

The hypothesis that an ant colony may exhibit some level of phenomenal consciousness encompasses four distinct answers, depending on how the parts interact in the constitution of the superorganism (Fonseca, 2023). However, for a given answer to be satisfactory to the Combination Problem, the chemical information transmitted by ants would have to be structured in such a way as to communicate intentional states, and, consequently, following exposure to external sensory stimuli or contact via antennae (semiochemical exchange), interindividual neural synchronization (among (...) brains) could occur, thereby grounding collectively coordinated behavior. Accordingly, I defend the view that the chemical signals dispersed by ants carry mental content, and that semiochemical exchange produces interbrain synchronization, thus constituting a collective consciousness. I conclude that, if there is sufficiently strong synchronization among brains, following the sharing of intentional states, an ant colony may possess a unified mind with a spatially distributed body. (shrink)

Science increases understanding, and offers more and more approximate natural explanations. The process of rationality uncovering patterns as well as causes constitutes scientific inquiry. This book is a multidisciplinary study of the mind body problem. Hypothesis of this book challenges reductionist-scientists identification of mind and body, and the so-called common-sense religious dualism of soul-in-the-machine of the body. Though human mind cannot be disserved from its neuronal correlates as a separate entity, it is irreducible to the brain. (...) If mind and brain are neither two dichotomised substance nor one and the same substance, then what is it? As the brain is made up of components, even the thoughts or the self, in some sense, are emergent properties of those components. But how? Answer to these questions consist in the ubiquitous phenomenon of emergence. The inquiry incorporates essential themes such as complexity, system dynamics, emergence, cosmological-biological evolution, thermodynamics and evolution. Human mind as the emergent functionality of the human brain is a biological system embedded in the universe that has thermodynamic-evolutionary history. The universe, which is a matter-energy-information system, actualised in time and space, becomes conscious of itself at least through one of its invention viz. human mind-brain. (shrink)

Elizabeth Schechter explores the implications of the experience of people who have had the pathway between the two hemispheres of their brain severed, and argues that there are in fact two minds, subjects of experience, and intentional agents inside each split-brain human being: right and left. But each split-brain subject is still one of us.

A post-Newtonian understanding of matter includes immaterial forces; thus, the concept of ‘physical’ has lost what usefulness it previously had and Cartesian dualism has, consequently, ceased to support a divide between the mental and the physical. A contemporary scientific understanding of mind that goes back at least as far as Priestley in the 18th century, not only includes immaterial components but identifies brain parts in which these components correlate with neural activity. What are we left with? The challenge (...) is no longer to figure out how a physical brain interacts with a nonphysical mind, but to try to unify theories of mind and theories of brain that to date do not share a single property. The challenge is enormous, but at least we can be quite clear about what its nature is, as there is no reason to be distracted by the idea of two distinct substances. In the present volume, many historical perspectives on the mind-body problem are discussed. In what follows, we follow major currents of thought regarding the mind-body problem so that it can be seen how we arrived at the modern conception that it makes sense only to talk about theory unification. (shrink)

The paper develops two related thought experiments exploring variations on an ‘animat’ theme. Animats are hybrid devices with both artificial and biological components. Traditionally, ‘components’ have been construed in concrete terms, as physical parts or constituent material structures. Many fascinating issues arise within this context of hybrid physical organization. However, within the context of functional/computational theories of mentality, demarcations based purely on material structure are unduly narrow. It is abstract functional structure which does the key work in characterizing the respective (...) ‘components’ of thinking systems, while the ‘stuff’ of material implementation is of secondary importance. Thus the paper extends the received animat paradigm, and investigates some intriguing consequences of expanding the conception of bio-machine hybrids to include abstract functional and semantic structure. In particular, the thought experiments consider cases of mind-machine merger where there is no physical Brain-Machine Interface: indeed, the material human body and brain have been removed from the picture altogether. The first experiment illustrates some intrinsic theoretical difficulties in attempting to replicate the human mind in an alternative material medium, while the second reveals some deep conceptual problems in attempting to create a form of truly Artificial General Intelligence. (shrink)

In this section, we will start with an influential attempt to define `intelligence', and then we will move to a consideration of how human intelligence is to be investigated on the machine model. The last part of the section will discuss the relation between the mental and the biological.

The article discusses the process of “conceptual borrowing”, according to which, when a new discipline emerges, it develops its technical vocabulary also by appropriating terms from other neighbouring disciplines. The phenomenon is likened to Carl Schmitt’s observation that modern political concepts have theological roots. The authors argue that, through extensive conceptual borrowing, AI has ended up describing computers anthropomorphically, as computational brains with psychological properties, while brain and cognitive sciences have ended up describing brains and minds computationally and informationally, (...) as biological computers. The crosswiring between the technical languages of these disciplines is not merely metaphorical but can lead to confusion, and damaging assumptions and consequences. The article ends on an optimistic note about the self-adjusting nature of technical meanings in language and the ability to leave misleading conceptual baggage behind when confronted with advancement in understanding and factual knowledge. (shrink)

The critical brain hypothesis is briefly introduced, and a number of implications regarding the functioning of the brain and the human mind are pointed out. -/- After a brief overview of how the mind emerges from an evolving assembly of neuronal networks of various size-groups in the brain, we include a summary outline of a nontechnical nature relating to a few aspects of dynamical systems, based on which we introduce the idea of critical states, again (...) avoiding technical discourse. Criticality in complex systems involves a close proximity between regular dynamics with an admixture of low dimensional chaos, on the one hand, and relatively high dimensional chaos on the other. -/- The brain is supposed to operate in a dynamic state close to criticality, referred to as one 'at the edge of chaos', where it is driven toward such a state in a process of self-organized complexity, which makes possible an adaptive evolution of the neuronal networks, in response to an uncertain and continuously evolving environment. This process of self-organized complexity culminating in a near-critical state is referred to as self-organized criticality, in which there occasionally takes place a crossing through the critical state with an avalanche-like burst of neuronal activity, when the system return to the near-critical state. -/- Correspondingly, the human mind also operates ‘at the edge of chaos’, which results in a phenomenal robustness and flexibility of the mind, both making it a highly adaptive entity in a constantly changing environment. In particular, the near-criticality of the mind is likely to be of enormous significance in inferential processes like creativity where there occurs an unconstrained exploration of the conceptual space, generating links between remote concepts, thereby resulting in a significant change in our view of the world. -/- Criticality endows our mind with a certain universality in the manner in which we respond to significant changes in our environment---the hall-mark of such near-universal response being a characteristic slowness referred to as critical slowing down. This contrasts with the way we routinely engage in myriads of mental activities in our interactions with the world that are marked by enormous variability between individuals and a much shorter characteristic time of response. -/- Near-criticality of the brain is of great relevance in the setting up of large scale neuronal networks by means of spontaneous neuronal activity---in particular, the default mode network, supposed to be the link between the self and non-self aspects of the mind, is likely to be a result of the spontaneous near-critical dynamics of the brain. Finally, the critical brain hypothesis is supposed to shed much light on the way the mind occasionally loses its coherence, with the resulting emergence of aberrant mental behavior. -/- It needs to be mentioned, however, that the critical brain hypothesis is not a firmly entrenched theoretical idea in neuropsychology and is rooted more in the physical sciences than in neuroscience. However, it is certainly suggestive of fruitful insights that can illuminate large areas of neuropsychology in days to come. (shrink)

Progress in neuroscience and AI has renewed interest in whether human-level consciousness could be instantiated in non-biological systems, including via whole-brain emulation. A common assumption underlying such proposals is that any function sufficient for consciousness can be implemented on a Turing-equivalent digital computer. This paper challenges the strength of that assumption by introducing the Step-Structure Principle: while Turing-equivalent architectures can emulate the input–output behaviour and causal logic of any computable function, they do not in general preserve the step-structure of (...) a computation: the number and organisation of inputs and outputs involved in the architecture’s computational steps, as well as subsequent aggregate metrics, such as total steps and information processing density. I argue that this distinction matters if specific architectural features of computation are relevant to phenomenal consciousness. Three independent motivations are developed: (i) constraints arising from computational cost and irreducibility in complex systems, (ii) phase-transition-like thresholds suggested by empirical neuroscience, and (iii) the problem of phenomenal binding in conscious experience. Each motivation is uncertain, but any one would be sufficient to undermine the assumption that digital architectures automatically suffice for human-style consciousness. The paper outlines empirically testable research pathways to assess whether step-structure is relevant, drawing on advances in neuroscience, computational modelling, and adversarial collaborations in consciousness research. The results bear directly on AI consciousness, digital sentience, and the safety of proposed trajectories toward artificial or uploaded minds. (shrink)

The biological brain creates a mind, and the mental mind creates a brain. Learn how the brain creates consciousness and how it generates momentaneous time moments. Discover how at each moment in Time, our body runs the whole program of Evolution. Neuroscience and Philosophy.

Evidence that minds are neural electromagnetic fields comes from research into how separate brain activities bind to form unified percepts and unified minds. Explanations of binding using synchrony, attention, and convergence are all problematic. But the unity of EM fields explains binding without these problems. These unified fields neatly explain correlations and divergences between synchrony, attention, convergence, and unified minds. The simplest explanation for the unity of both minds and fields is that minds are fields. Treating minds as the (...) fields' underlying, intrinsic nature has the further virtue of avoiding mind-body problems. There's also rising evidence that EM fields interact with brains. McFadden argues here that fields help shift the focus of attention by initiating synchrony in different neural networks, which boosts their own fields and thereby binds their activity. This evidence that minds are fields that bind and guide brain activities supports free will over epiphenomenalism and supervenience. (shrink)

We offer an argument for the extended mind based on considerations from brain development. We argue that our brains develop to function in partnership with cognitive resources located in our external environments. Through our cultural upbringing we are trained to use artefacts in problem solving that become factored into the cognitive routines our brains support. Our brains literally grow to work in close partnership with resources we regularly and reliably interact with. We take this argument to be in (...) line with complementarity or “second-wave” defences of the extended mind that stress the functional differences between biological elements and external, environmental resources in putative cases of extended cognition. Complementarity defences argue that many of the kinds of cognition humans excel at can only be accomplished by brains working together with a body that directly manipulates and acts on the world [Rowlands (1999); Menary (2007); Sutton (2010)]. We argue that complementarity and functionalist defences of the extended mind aren’t opposed, but that complementarity considerations can provide much needed and hitherto under exploited leverage in defending EMT. Moreover, the developmental work we will describe adds extra weight to the complementarity case for EMT. (shrink)

This is a review of Susan Greenfield's 2015 book 'Mind Change: How Digital Technologies Are Leaving Their Mark On Our Brains'. Greenfield is a neuroscientist and a member of the UK House of Lords, who argues that digital technologies are changing the human environment "in an unprecedented way," and that by adapting to this environment, "the brain may also be changing in an unprecedented way." The book and its author have created a surprising amount of controversy. I discuss (...) both Greenfield's book and a prominent critique by Bell et al. (2015). The exchange points to some flaws in Greenfield's argument and represents an interesting debate about the public role of scientists, but it does not undermine the value of the book as a springboard for discussions about possible policies and future research. (shrink)

With neurons emergence, life alters itself in a remarkable way. This embodied neurons become carriers of signals, and processing devices: it begins an inexorable progression of functional complexity, from increasingly drawn behaviors to the mind and eventually to consciousness [Damasio, 2010]. In which moment has awareness arisen in the history of life? The emergence of human consciousness is associated with evolutionary developments in brain, behavior and mind, which ultimately lead to the creation of culture, a radical novelty (...) in natural history. It is in this context of biological evolution of conscious brains that we raise the question: how conscious brains connect with each other? In order to answer it, I will explore how brain states and conscious states each participate in dynamic interactive processes involving the whole organism. I will argue that a possible way to overcome the hard problem of consciousness might be based on the notion of embodiment as a process of embedding the mental in the living organism relating dynamically with the environment through the sensorymotor experience. In order to do so, I will provide an assembly between an anthropologic perspective of consciousness with contemporary Philosophy of Mind, Interaction Theory [Gallagher 2001, 2008; Zahavi 2001, 2008; Fuchs and De Jaegher 2009]. (shrink)

This essay examines the relationship between metabolic brain processes and psycho-physiological activities or mental activity. It is argued that metabolic brain processes, including those involved in the production of energy, proteins and other molecules are restorative and conditional, rather than directly involved in mental activities. This stance suggests that life-time acquired learning and memory is precipitated as a permanent and personal configuration of the brain, that is in principle accessible to neurophysiological examination. Current neuroscience largely ignores implicitly (...) or explicitly the search for new emergent configurations of the brain. (shrink)

Abstract -/- This paper explores the alignment of the human brain and mind with a universal formula that reflects the Divine Creator’s natural laws. It examines this integration from both scientific and spiritual perspectives, showing how the principles of cause and effect, systemic balance, and feedback mechanisms operate across biological, psychological, and societal dimensions. The discussion highlights how these natural laws, when understood and applied, can minimize suffering and promote harmony. -/- .

This paper revisits and refines an earlier informal theory of mind and brain. It begins from a simple question of existence: what does it mean for something to exist as a distinct object? I propose that an object exists insofar as it is not absolutely identical to everything else, grounding existence in strict identity rather than description. From this, I introduce a small set of operators for identity, negation, and “everything except,” and explore how they behave under self-reference (...) and composition. Using this framework, I argue that language does not exist in the same sense as objects, since words can vary arbitrarily while preserving meaning, making them non-identical across all descriptions. The theory is then extended to experience: even if two individuals share identical physical brain states, their subjective experience cannot be reduced to that identity relation in the same way. This leads to a separation between the physical brain (what exists) and the mind (the experiential structure that does not reduce cleanly to strict identity conditions). The result is a structural distinction between physical existence, linguistic representation, and subjective experience, with implications for how identity, meaning, and free will are framed. (shrink)

This article examines how human behavior emerges from the interaction between the brain and the soul and why many cognitive and psychological issues arise from a misunderstanding of this relationship. Contrary to conventional views that consider the mind as an independent entity, this article argues that the mind is a cognitive illusion arising from brain activity. Drawing on neuroscience research and spiritual theories, it is demonstrated that consciousness transcends the brain, and recognizing this truth can (...) free us from the dominance of the brain’s unconscious reactions. (shrink)

Introspecting subjects are widely believed to enjoy some form of epistemic privilege with regard to their mental states. While it is unclear if introspective knowledge is indeed infallible, our authority in the mental realm derives much of its force from the sheer absence of persuasive competing interpretations. With the advent of brain-decoding technology, such competition is now being introduced. While the literature sees the danger of decoding mental states in their revelation to third parties, I argue that divulging them (...) to the subjects themselves is equally problematic: in addition to the introspective viewpoint, subjects will henceforth take on a third-personal, supposedly objective perspective on the same mental events that they are simultaneously observing from the inside. I shall analyse what it means to let oneself in via another route and explore the psychological effects that the ensuing confrontation is likely to have on our perceived introspective authority. (shrink)

In this paper, I claim that extant empirical data do not support a radically embodied understanding of the mind but, instead, suggest (along with a variety of other results) a massively representational view. According to this massively representational view, the brain is rife with representations that possess overlapping and redundant content, and many of these represent other mental representations or derive their content from them. Moreover, many behavioral phenomena associated with attention and consciousness are best explained by the (...) coordinated activity of units with redundant content. I finish by arguing that this massively representational picture challenges the reliability of a priori theorizing about consciousness. (shrink)

Humans have long wondered whether they can survive the death of their physical bodies. Some people now look to technology as a means by which this might occur, using terms such 'whole brain emulation', 'mind uploading', and 'substrate independent minds' to describe a set of hypothetical procedures for transferring or emulating the functioning of a human mind on a synthetic substrate. There has been much debate about the philosophical implications of such procedures for personal survival. Most participants (...) to that debate assume that the continuation of identity is an objective fact that can be revealed by scientific enquiry or rational debate. We bring into this debate a perspective that has so far been neglected: that personal identities are in large part social constructs. Consequently, to enable a particular identity to survive the transference process, it is not sufficient to settle age-old philosophical questions about the nature of identity. It is also necessary to maintain certain networks of interaction between the synthetic person and its social environment, and sustain a collective belief in the persistence of identity. We defend this position by using the example of the Dalai Lama in Tibetan Buddhist tradition and identify technological procedures that could increase the credibility of personal continuity between biological and artificial substrates. (shrink)

Erwin Schrödinger, a principal architect of quantum mechanics, extended his intellectual pursuits into the fundamental nature of life and consciousness. In his seminal works, he forwarded a provocative metaphysical thesis: consciousness is a singularity, experienced only in the singular and never in the plural. This paper reviews this ”One-Mind” hypothesis, tracing its origins from Schrödinger’s phenomenological reasoning to its deep resonance with the non-dual philosophy of Advaita Vedānta. We explore the central tenets of his argument—that the plurality of minds (...) is a mistaken inference drawn from the plurality of bodies—and contrast this view with its primary challenges from modern neuroscience and analytic philosophy, including split-brain research and reductionist theories of self. -/- We consider a synthesis of Schrödinger’s ideas with contemporary scientific frameworks. A speculative reconciliation is proposed between his top-down metaphysics and the bottom-up, mathematically rigorous Integrated Information Theory (IIT), framing IIT as a potential ”physics of Māyā” that describes the individuation of a universal consciousness. We then formalize Schrödinger’s concepts through computational and quantum-cognitive models, presenting a pseudocode simulation of his ”split-mind” thought experiment and proposing novel research hypotheses that bridge his density-matrix formalism with modern models of cognition. The paper offers a critique of the logical coherence of the One-Mind view, highlighting its philosophical value as a profound challenge to our most basic assumptions about selfhood, while acknowledging its limitations as a scientific theory. This synthesis charts the enduring legacy of Schrödinger’s inquiry, demonstrating its continued relevance in shaping the deepest questions at the intersection of physics, neuroscience, and philosophy. While new considerations test early perspectives, newer arguments demonstrate challenges and leave more to be explored. (shrink)

Is it rational to believe that the mind is identical to the brain? Identity theorists say it is (or looks like it will be, once all the neuroscientific evidence is in), and they base this claim on a general epistemic route to belief in identity. I re-develop this general route and defend it against some objections. Then I discuss how rational belief in mind–brain identity, obtained via this route, can be threatened by an appropriately adjusted version (...) of the anti-physicalist knowledge argument. Responses to this threat usually appeal either to different modes of presentation or to phenomenal concepts. But neither type of response is satisfactory. I provide a novel response, which appeals to an innocuous epistemic peculiarity of phenomenal states, namely their, as I shall call it, evidential insulation. (shrink)