JUD:

I believe that the dynamical neural networks of the human brain perceives the patterns of interaction of the changing objects within the world which it finds itself and reifies the changes it observes and describes them with such useful ontological fictional vignettes as: causes, effects, superventions, events, circumstances, incidents, happenings, occurrences, occasions' etc.

ANTONIO:
"Why, 'networks'?"  (in the plural case). I would say, the human brain is one only neural network -- which I would call, in one word only, "mind" -- or, if you just abhor the term, "mind network".

(Now I shall remark that I make no difference between the term "mind" and the term "brain" to identify the same existing reality.)

JUD:
Dear Antonio: "Why, "networks" ? (in the plural case). Good question. I suppose that it harks back to the idea that different parts of the brain operate differently and take care of specific jobs.  Even if this is true or not true I agree that ultimately the whole shebang will be connected up as one unity - so from now on it is; *network* and not *networks.*

ANTONIO:Associating the word *mind* with its connotations of non-physical duality with the meaty lump we call the brain is another matter however. I prefer to keep the ghost's grubby little hands well away from the handles that operate the machina.

GARY:
Ok., let's keep the inappropriate meaning well away. The meanings of words are conventions, aren't they? As for myself, for the time being, I do not accept the convention for a "transcendental meaning" of the word "mind" (from Latin: "mens-mentis"). In a future, perhaps I'll do. At present, let that meaning go under Willie's razor.

Personally I would stay with 'networks' for a number of reasons. One, Jud's point, ' I suppose that it harks back to the idea that different parts of the brain operate differently and take care of specific jobs', is extremely important in that it really describes the physical nature of the brain. Two, positing a 'unity' to the brain once again puts another ghost into the machine.

It is the very purpose of abstractions to create a 'unity', invisible entities supposedly based on physical realities. But what is the physical reality in this case? From simple observation the brain case is a bag of different organs if I use that term rightly. What is the reason for supposing a boss entity as 'unity' where 'the whole shebang will be connected up as one unity'? Well, actually, a seemingly very good one. We – I mean specifically the 'unities' Antonio, Jud and doofus here – portray themselves to themselves as acting, thinking unities. This seems perfectly obvious to ourselves.

But if we bring in an outside observer who watches us 'act', not only is each act intellectually divisible in several parts – even though it seems that act, to be identified as that 'act', has to be NAMED a 'unity', but they also observe collateral movements that seem to have little or nothing to do with the supposedly purposeful 'act', are normally disregarded as merely personal characteristics, habits, etcetera, totally irrelevant to the purpose of the act. And – they are. But this is the BOSS speaking who wants all his employees to be working toward a unified purpose. But is this in fact true? Placed in another context, labor and management, the military, labeling groups of people as unified in their purpose such as Muslims, one would normally become immediately skeptical.

But here we seem to have no problem with positing a unified purpose or network to the brain. I would say we are judging the product by its results, a unified purpose, and not paying attention to how, in reality, that 'unified' purpose was actually achieved. I would say we should at least try to think of the 'brain' in terms of a boss and his workers. In psychologically 'healthy' people, the boss's purpose overrides all difficulties in producing the desired product. But in 'unhealthy' people there is no reality interactive boss giving the consumers the product they want.

Now, the brain as physical fact is always already divided. Worse than that, different individuals both do or do not survive if the same sections of the brain are destroyed. Some people can live with less and some people cannot. I think the evolutionary model of the brain, used rationally and noting points where inseparable connections have occurred which, when separated, cause death, is illuminative and somewhat correct. It posits primitive brains, motor activity brains, and brains where supposedly thought occurs. They can possibly have not only different jobs but also wholly separate purposes, if one accepts purpose as an electrical impulse stimulating certain activities. They can pursue that purpose totally irrespective of any other part of the brain. They are sometimes at least to a degree and sometimes truly seemingly independent of all other parts of the brain and in some individuals can be shown to function as such.

This may be all nonsense to me in the light of day but I think at this moment I have just touched on the obvious tip of the ice berg. We can only speak, communicate, with abstractive unity-making words where in fact we physically see no real unities. As long as the boss gets his way, this is unimportant. But there is always the possibility even for us, that we have in fact observed in other people, that this managerial scheme can break down and a 'unified' individual, a unified networked brain, can fall apart into quarrelling individuals. Instead of looking from the top of the power pyramid down, maybe we should speculate upon the lumpen-proletariat within, the hypothalamus, the cerebellum, the spinal cord itself, and the pituitary gland which Descartes said was the seat of the soul. Maybe the brain's 'unity' only suits our self image – and purpose.


RICHARD:

Why is this an important distinction – singular or plural on network[s]? It is admitted by the most astute neuroscientists that we know practically nothing about how the brain operates, except that it is probably the most complex thing in the known universe. The experimentally verified fact that there are functionally identifiable areas of the brain [e. g. Broca’s and Wernike’s areas] does not mean that these areas are exclusive in their language functions, nor does it mean that they do not functionally contribute to other areas of the brain. Gary, why do you say that positing a unity to the brain once again puts another ghost into the machine – any more than any assumption we posit regarding the brains operation?

GARY:
It is the very purpose of abstractions to create a 'unity', invisible entities supposedly based on physical realities. But what is the physical reality in this case? From simple observation the brain case is a bag of different organs if I use that term rightly. What is the reason for supposing a boss entity as 'unity' where 'the whole shebang will be connected up as one unity'? Well, actually, a seemingly very good one. We – I mean specifically the 'unities' Antonio, Jud and doofus here – portray themselves to themselves as acting, thinking unities. This seems perfectly obvious to ourselves.

RICHARD:

I am not sure I agree that it is the purpose of abstractions to create a ‘unity’ – invisible entities, etc. For me, abstractions serve to universalize and concretize ideas – not all of which have anything to do with physical realities, and in fact, frequently do not. After thousands of years of assuming that the real ‘persona’ or ‘soul’ or ‘intelligence’ resided in various parts of the body, it has been agreed that there is good evidence that the brain is the seat of these concepts – be they ever so vague and poorly stated and understood. The ‘brain in the vat’ thought experiment suggests quite clearly that the brain alone is a lonesome and ineffectual organ, since the sensing and feedback apparatus in the remaining parts of the human body fill out the definition of humanness. As for the ‘boss’ in our behavior, any suggestion of a boss or homunculus is dangerous, since it requires an explanation of the animating agent for management, and thus a nasty bit of reductionism that can go nowhere.

GARY:

But here we seem to have no problem with positing a unified purpose or network to the brain. I would say we are judging the product by its results, a unified purpose, and not paying attention to how, in reality, that 'unified' purpose was actually achieved. I would say we should at least try to think of the 'brain' in terms of a boss and his workers. In psychologically 'healthy' people, the boss's purpose overrides all difficulties in producing the desired product. But in 'unhealthy' people there is no reality interactive boss giving the consumers the product they want.

RICHARD:
I have serious doubts as to the existence of any ‘unified purpose’ in anything we do. There is surely always some proximal purpose, but as with causality, we can never know all the contributing factors that conspire to cause us to act a certain way. I cannot think of the brain with any ‘boss’ for the reasons I stated above. As animals, IMO we live lives that are probably 99% reactive. That may be depressing for some to contemplate, but if we believe otherwise, what difference can it possibly make in our lives?


ANTONIO: With the "many networks" perspective, a big question remains unanswered. That is: are all these networks connected together to form one only brain network?

I think they are, and this fact is empirically proved by the practice of Frontal Lobotomy. By this old surgical practice -- not yet used because its goal is now given by pharmaceuticals -- a cut is made to disunite (the networks) of the right and the left hemisphere in one's brain. As the wanted result, the cut one loses one's own autonomy and becomes an obedient puppet. What did it happen?

What it did is, by cutting one's *united* brain network into a
*twin* brain networks, the "boss" has gone!

Is this enough to us to admit that "the boss" is not only a useful abstraction, but it has its own physical representation somewhere inside a *united* neuronal network?