The Mind & Brain

The take cargon & Brain Are There Differences? Darreia Johnson PHI208-Ethics and Moral argument Professor Kurt Mosser February 27, 2013 The discernment & Brain Are There Differences? This is a fascinate subject, the judgement and the instinct beca white plague these argon the kind of headers philosophers wreak so gravely to answer. Many people believe the genius and heading are the equivalent. Mind and Brain are two terms that are understood to smashed the very(prenominal) when utilize in the colloquial sense. There is currently or so difference amid the two in their making.Brain is made of physiologic function plot of ground legal opinion is non made of physical matter. To be to a greater extent elaborate nous is made up of cells, blood vessels and nerves to recognise a few. Mind is nothing scarcely the thought that resides in the outlook. obscure from thoughts, heading get arounds room for emotions, memories and dreams as well. I will address certain perspectives from different academic sources as well as my own concerning the mind and champion and how they work. In terms of a computer, we canister look at the brain as the hardware and the mind as the software, however it is a good deal more complicated than that. Mind refers to the part of you that is capable of thought. Brain can be a synonym for mind, and it can also refer to the physical organ deep down your skull. That is, the brain is a physical organ plot of land mind is a more philosophical concept. People sometimes gift a careful distinction among the two words when discussing the philosophical concept. Like, when people are debating whether thither is such(prenominal) a thing as an immortal soul, they will say things like, Can the mind exist without the brain? In most day-to-day contexts, the two words are fair much synonymous.The brain, part of the central nervous system situated within the skull. It includes two cerebral hemispheres, parallel masses of dee ply furrowed interweave as well as the brainstem and cerebellum. Its functions include muscle visualise and coordination, sensory(prenominal) reception and integration, speech intersection, memory storage, and the elaboration of thought and emotion. agree to Susan Greenfield in an article I read, she has a different approach. She says There is a familiar dichotomy between mind and brain, hereas the concepts of mind and consciousness ofttimes are conflated I wish to argue here that both suppositions are wrong. We want to first explore the aspects of the mind and brain. Where brain obviously need no definition, mind presents more of a trip-wire. Normally the term is utilize to refer to abstract airy-fairy yetts that float free of the biological squalor of neuronic circuitry and chemicals. But more than rather vague psychological activity, mind is used also for personal aspects of brain function, as in I dont mind, broaden the mind, be your mind up, etc.I would venture the n that perhaps mind is very close to what we might refer to as spirit, but the big difference is that personality is in the philia of a third-person beholder, whereas mind is a first-person perspective, i. e. it is what it feels like to be you rather than what early(a) people judge you to be. (Greenfield, 2002) The brain, Susan suggest, is a gross aspect and can alter from whiz individual to another, they offer n clue as to who is kind, witty, venomous and good at cooking. Let us consider how the brain is organized. at bottom each macro brain region there is no single isolated complete function.We know, for practice, that vision is divided up into color, motion and practice processing and, in turn, the function of vision can preoccupy all over 30 brain regions. Similarly, any one brain region, like the prefrontal cortex, can participate in more than one function. So brain regions are bit players on the brain stage, and not independent units. inside each area we know that there is complex brain circuitry, eventually boiling down to the synapse, across which we find all the biochemical baggage needed to operate a system of chemical transmission in turn, this baggage of enzymes, receptors and uptake mechanisms is the will of gene expression.Moreover, we know that in our all body there are merely 30 000 or there to the highest degree genes, so that even if every single gene in the body was devoted to a synapse, one would still be out by 1010 (assuming approximately 1015 connections in the brain). So, we can no more attribute autonomous functions to the most basic level of brain function, genes, than we can to the most macro, the brain regions. In both cases there is very little room for part oeuvre and therefore it is hard to see how personalization of the brain, the mind, might develop. Greenfield, 2002) Speaking of genes, one would agree that genes play important roles in our thought process. In The stand of the Mind How a Tiny Number of Genes Creates the Complexities of Human Thought, Gary Marcus takes as his goal not to try to prove that genes make a differencea matter that is no longer in serious doubtbut to describe how they work and to explain, for the first time, what that means for the mind (pp. 45 italics in original).He specifi recollecty disparages the popular press (and the scientists who so inform it) for announcing the baring of a gene for this or that just as he dismisses the question whether nurture or nature is more important (p. 7). He understands the only meaningful answer involves their interaction, an understanding of which leads to the more refined and productive question, How do genes work together with the environment to build a human mind? (p. 8). Nothing less is at stake than the tossing out of the gene as a permanent template.Marcuss chief point, made after disposing of both the perilously fallacious single gene theory and the tone that genetic social system is unmalleable and therefo re that behavior is foretold, is that genes do for the brain the same things as they do for the rest of the body They guide the fates of cells by guiding the production of proteins within those cells (p. 86). The alert reader, now accepting the idea of the flexibility and plasticity of the genes, will want to know precisely how the remote environment shapes the genes.The answer, Marcus writes, is that every genetic process is triggered by some sort of signal. From the perspective of a given cell, it doesnt matter where that signal comes from. The signal that launches the adjust-your-synapse cascade, for example, may come from within, or it may come from without. The same genes that are used to adjust synapses establish on internal instruction can be reused by external instruction. Candland, 2004) It goes on to say how genes shape our behavior, I also agree with Candlands perspective on the anaesthetise. I think that although the mind and brain a great deal are seen as one, that t hey are two different entities within the same host. I was reading an article earlier that said we can field of battle the brain but not the mind. I disagree with that article because that is what makes it so complex, we can hold the brain in our hands but not the mind. I think the mind is measured on different levels but studied as well.Psychiatrist, philosophers, and the field of medicine, just to mention a few, turn over the mind every day. They are able to draw the line between sane and insane, according to our text Philosophy, A Conscious Decision, talks about the extreme skeptic as Descartes seems to have constructed a skepticism so powerful that it calls into question anything we have ever been certain of that we have bodies, that there are other people around us, that were awake when we think we are, and even that 2 + 2 = 4.Most important, for epistemology, is that Descartes transforms the discussion into one of doubt about what we call the external creative activity the globe of objects that are outside of our mind, including the ordinary objects, such as tables and chairs, about which we make our most confident knowledge claims. (Mosser, 2010) This is an example how powerful and complex the mind is. Another way of learning how our minds work is to understand the brain systems that would produce mental representations with the properties just described.For this purpose, he introduces the belief of learning by prediction and links it to Bayesian decision theory. He argues that many of the cognitive phenomena considered can be explained if it is assumed that the brain operates as an ideal Bayesian observer. This conceptualization directly builds on the notion that experience and action are proactive processes and involve the generation of mental models. The models generated by the brains are continuously tested against reality and adapted using sensory signals and prediction errors, which are computed based on probabilistic knowledge derived from last(prenominal) experiences.When facing a tall animate object in a streetcar, for example, probabilistic information about the likelihood of encountering a human macrocosm versus a gorilla plays a critical role in the perceptual processes that allow for object recognition. In motor control, probabilistic knowledge (e. g. , a filled backpack typically weighs x) is combined with sensory feedback to support the optimum selection and online correction of movement when pursuing an intention (e. g. , to pick up the backpack). (Kohler, 2008)In contrast to the above theory, it is said modern belief that the mind is the same thing as the brain, and therefore consists of genetic and chemical processes. Contrary to this notion is the more common sense view that our minds are made up of experiences in the world and with others, and while the brain may be the temporal home of the mind, it is not the mind itself. Professor Kando begins with a refutation of cautious reductionism and positivis m, and then builds on the work of William James, George Herbert Mead, and Joel Charon to make the case that the mind is a product of learning and not the same thing as the brain. Kando, 2008) The mind and brain are also associated with personality disorders. In this context the use of the words mind and brain in psychiatry is often associated with a set of polarities. Concepts such as environment, psychosocial, and psychotherapy are linked with mind, while genes, biology, and medication are often associated with brain. The author examines these dichotomies as they apply to personality disorders. Method Research on antisocial and borderline personality disorders that is relevant to these dichotomies is evaluated.The implications of the findings for the understanding of pathogenesis and treatment are reconsidered. Results In the clinical setting, it is problematic to bollock together terms such as genes, brain, and biological as though they are separate and distinct from terms such as environment, mind, and psychosocial. These dichotomies are problematic, because genes and environment are inextricably intertwined in the pathogenesis of personality disorders, psychosocial experiences may result in permanent changes in the brain, and psychotherapy may have its exercise by altering brain structure and function.The theory of mind is a useful construct for bridging mind and brain in the treatment of personality disorders. Conclusions Severe personality disorders are best understood and treated without either-or dichotomies of brain and mind. Each domain has a different language, however, and the language of the mind is demand to help the patient develop a theory of mind. (Gabbard, 2005) In conclusion, it could be necessary to associate the mind with the brain, but this is a complex issue because without the brain the mind cannot exist.However the mind and brain are very different. Theo Clark says, scientific knowledge suggests that the world is inanimate, purpos eless, made up of material things which operate on a cause and effect basis yet the mental world seems to involve consciousness, planning, desire etc. It would seem paradoxical that one world is the product of another. Yet this is the conclusion we are faced with if we are to make any sense of the evidence at hand and resolve one of the major questions of all time. Do the electronic processes of the brain create or give rise to the mind or is it that the electronic processes Are the mind? The finis of this question is essentially philosophical, but by necessity, it is grounded in the world of empirical science. (Clark, 2008) There are two vantages from which one can study the mind. The first-person mark (I seered) and the third-person (He says he sees red when certain pathways in his brain encounter a wavelength of six hundred nanometers).This can be slackly labeled as Introspectionism and Behaviourism respectively. As one cannot directly see into anothers head, methodological p roblems arise using Introspectionist techniques, a result of which can be seen in the foibles of much introspective psychology (such as Freudianism). Behaviourism holds that any mental events are outside the realm of empirical science ergo, it is now the brain which is the focus, as opposed to the mind. (Clark, 2008) References Candland, D. K. (2004). What Is Mind? No Matter. What Is Matter? Never Mind. Mind Is Matter Psychology Better Mind. Psyccritiques, 49(Suppl 2), doi10. 1037/040007 Clark, T. (2008) Is there and Difference between the Mind and the Brain? Research, Science http//www. scribd. com/doc/2451851/Is-There-a-Difference-Between-the-Mind-and-Brain. Gabbard, G. O. (2005). Mind, brain, and personality disorders. The American diary of Psychiatry, 162(4), 648-55. Retrieved from http//search. proquest. com/docview/220501257? accountid=32521 Greenfield, S. (2002). Mind, Brain and Consciousness. The British Journal of Psychiatry,