• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Mind/ Body Problem

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟43,188.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
How do you understand the mind/ body problem. That is, the fact that mental experiences seem so unlike physical events but nevertheless seem to be connected. How can they be connect when they are so utterly and totally different in type? How can the movement of particles make me experience colour and touch in my consciousness?

I really don't know, but the closest answer I can make a guess towards is that perhaps all physical events intrinsically have a mental aspect to them. So the physical doesn't cause the mental, but rather they are both two different sides of the same thing. Reality is intrinsically both physical and mental, but we can only sense the external physical world because it is only our physical bodies that have the tools to investigate the world around it.

Edit: eg: Like the magnetism and electricity were once thought to be different, they are now both considered to be the same thing, electromagnetism.

That doesn't give a proper theoretical basis to understand the mind/ body problem, but it seems better than just assuming that only the material brain exists.

But perhaps I'm talking nonsense. ;)
 
Last edited:

drjean

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,284
4,511
✟358,220.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
but we can only sense the external physical world because it is only our physical bodies that have the tools to investigate the world around it.

That doesn't give a proper theoretical basis to understand the mind/ body problem, but it seems better than just assuming that only the material brain exists.

But perhaps I'm talking nonsense. ;)

:wave:

First, I don't consider the connection between the body and mind a problem. So I am beginning at a different spot than you.

Second, what about the world the mind can sense, or the heart? Spiritual discernment is for the mental/spiritual aspect of the world too.

Without the mind, how could your physical body interpret what it investigates?

I don't believe the mind is in the brain. I think we are more like a holograph---each cell being the whole, including our mind and spiritual natures.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟163,194.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How do you understand the mind/ body problem.

I understand that it doesn't even sound like a 'problem' to me. It sounds like an argument from personal incredulity, based on a basic ignorance of the concept of emergence.

Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How can they be connect when they are so utterly and totally different in type? How can the movement of particles make me experience colour and touch in my consciousness?

The same way atoms - which themselves don't taste, smell, look like or behave like apples - can form an apple.

It's difficult to conceive of, especially since our thoughts and experiences are so personal to us and we're conditioned to elevate them above the other furniture of the universe, but all the relevant data points in that direction.

it seems better than just assuming that only the material brain exists.

That's not an assumption. That's a conclusion based on hard data.

That's not to say there aren't still questions, but we're not clueless, either.

But perhaps I'm talking nonsense.

Not entirely. Dualism is an idea with a long and distinguished history, showing up time and again in the literature of some truly great philosophical minds. It just happens to be wrong.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟43,188.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
:wave:

First, I don't consider the connection between the body and mind a problem. So I am beginning at a different spot than you.

How do you understand it?

Second, what about the world the mind can sense, or the heart? Spiritual discernment is for the mental/spiritual aspect of the world too.

I don't know what you mean. The mind can't sense anything outside itself. All sensation comes from the body. The can figure things out, assume, and invent things.

Without the mind, how could your physical body interpret what it investigates?

I don't believe the mind is in the brain. I think we are more like a holograph---each cell being the whole, including our mind and spiritual natures.

Do you mean hologram? Do you mean the body is a hologram? I'm still not sure how you mean the mind and body to be connected here. :)
 
Upvote 0

drjean

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Nov 16, 2011
15,284
4,511
✟358,220.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
lol Yes, I meant hologram. :doh: My mind/body connection suffers at times (my fingers don't type what I 'm thinking.) However, it's connected as well:
Holography (from the Greek ὅλος hólos, "whole" + γραφή grafē, "writing, drawing") is a technique which enables three-dimensional images to be made. It involves the use of a laser, interference, diffraction, light intensity recording and suitable illumination of the recording. The image changes as the position and orientation of the viewing system changes in exactly the same way as if the object were still present, thus making the image appear three-dimensional. The holographic recording itself is not an image; it consists of an apparently random structure of either varying intensity, density or profile.

I don't see this as a PROBLEM is what I meant by the first, understanding the body/mind connection is not a problem to me.

Yes, hologram... the mind and all there is about the body is contained in each cell. The mind is not in the brain as most consider, some say and I agree.

I don't believe it is the body that senses spirit. I believe it is Spirit that senses spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟43,188.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I understand that it doesn't even sound like a 'problem' to me. It sounds like an argument from personal incredulity, based on a basic ignorance of the concept of emergence.

Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I get what emergence is. I used to think the mind emerged from the brains complexity. I guess I still do, but it doesn't explain the mind/ body problem. But if you can explain it then you could perhaps go down in history. :p

The same way atoms - which themselves don't taste, smell, look like or behave like apples - can form an apple.

It isn't anything like that, but I can see why you think it might be like that. We understand how apples can be made up of atoms. All the attributes of an atom can be explain by atoms. The taste, smell, and colour of an apple can't be explained by atoms because an apple doesn't objective have those things. Taste, smell and colour are subjective experiences.

It's difficult to conceive of, especially since our thoughts and experiences are so personal to us and we're conditioned to elevate them above the other furniture of the universe, but all the relevant data points in that direction.

In what direction?

That's not an assumption. That's a conclusion based on hard data.

That's not to say there aren't still questions, but we're not clueless, either.

You will have to further explain what it is you think we know. Many philosophers recognize that we still don't understand how the mind and body are connected.

Not entirely. Dualism is an idea with a long and distinguished history, showing up time and again in the literature of some truly great philosophical minds. It just happens to be wrong.

I'm not sure if my belief in property dualism or monism.

lol Yes, I meant hologram. :doh: My mind/body connection suffers at times (my fingers don't type what I 'm thinking.) However, it's connected as well:
Holography (from the Greek ὅλος hólos, "whole" + γραφή grafē, "writing, drawing") is a technique which enables three-dimensional images to be made. It involves the use of a laser, interference, diffraction, light intensity recording and suitable illumination of the recording. The image changes as the position and orientation of the viewing system changes in exactly the same way as if the object were still present, thus making the image appear three-dimensional. The holographic recording itself is not an image; it consists of an apparently random structure of either varying intensity, density or profile.

I don't see this as a PROBLEM is what I meant by the first, understanding the body/mind connection is not a problem to me.

Yes, hologram... the mind and all there is about the body is contained in each cell. The mind is not in the brain as most consider, some say and I agree.

I don't believe it is the body that senses spirit. I believe it is Spirit that senses spirit.

I'm still not totally sure what you mean. When the brain changes the minds inside each cell change, and this is sensed by the Mind that is in control of your whole body (you)?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I don't know how to solve the issue. I am just not committed to any a priori position that says that the mind body connection is improbable or some how logically aberrant. For all I know it is physically necessary that when we have functional brain, we have functional consciousness. We just don't know how to explain it.

I think physicalism is the best option to rule in. But there may be more to the physical then we currently know i.e. interacting or coordinated particles like dark matter that might help constitute conscious life. As for conclusiveness though, I am agnostic. I will leave that to the pixies.

However when it comes to the art of life I might believe in a soul as superveninient on the physical, and self as abstract object. In order to try and be consistent with faith. I am not for philosophical methodological fundamentalism, but am more of a postmodern. I try and live with the spirit of an non representitive artist who like Apollinaire or Pollock captures part of the essence of the beauty of truth but betrays the eyes insistence on being heard at the same time. Which is not to trivialise religion as aesthetic invention but to view the some of the best of human self realisation, including self knowledge, as something inherenltly beautiful but also elusive and therefore to be approached from many angles if we are to probably get a taste the truth. It might take 36 throws of the dice to get a double six. With the epistemic lights dimmed all we can do is catch a glimpse of higher truth perhaps without knowing it, and enjoy the game as we play.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

elephunky

Previously known as dgirl1986
Nov 28, 2007
5,497
203
Perth, Western Australia
✟29,441.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Ive just sorta skimmed through the responses.

I dont pretend to be the smartest person but I got a sense that perhaps what you refer to may be your higher and lower consciousness. This is kinda hard for me to explain in a few paragraphs given that I have listened to many podcasts and read many books on the subject. Also, I apologise if this is not what you were referring to at all. My brain has the dumb but I couldnt resist this thread.

It would appear that we have two bodies that are connected, and as a result we have two levels of consciousness. We have a physical body and we have what is commonly called a spiritual/astral body that is its counterpart. Its all connected. When people talk about higher consciousness they are often referring to the spiritual consciousness. Lower consciousness tends to refer more to the physical consciousness in which the conscious part of the brain plays a major role and I guess the subconcious does as well.

I hope I havent confused anyone with the way Ive worded this and I seriously hope I havent got it the wrong way round lol.

There is actually a strand of science that delves into this and parapsychology which is ridiculously interesting but rejected by mainstream science since it generally doesnt fit in with their theories.

Anyone who knows more on the subject - feel free to correct me.
 
Upvote 0

ADTClone

Newbie
Oct 6, 2012
103
2
✟22,744.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
You will have to further explain what it is you think we know. Many philosophers recognize that we still don't understand how the mind and body are connected.

I have to disagree that the purpose of philosophers in this field is becoming less prominent. Day by day, science is discovering new ways that our brain works, in the physical reality. Our brain works in weird and wonderful ways.

Firstly however, I will raise the complications of the body-mind problem if you choose an alternative other than a entirely material brain.

The assumption with the mind-body problem(which I believe you are referring to) is that the mind is separate from the body; a kind of dualism. I will be raising the problems on dualism which involves a metaphysical mind; one outside of our physical reality. Unless you believe in some other form of dualism(perhaps a physical mind disconnected from our physical brain, which is not a good position to hold), this should be a good argument against what you think.


One of the major notions of dualism, specially cartesian dualism is the pineal gland. This particular form of dualism was invented by De'Carte many years ago(however many people still believe in it today). The concepts that I will discuss can be extrapolated to other forms of dualism however.

The problem we are faced with dualism is that there must be some way to communicate between the mind and body. If the mind is non-physical, it is an impossibility to communicate between the mind and body, as it is an impossibility for something non-physical to interact with something physical(which is the only mechanism of information transferral). So the idea that there is some non-physical mind that is connected to our body(by the pineal gland by the Cartesian view) is an impossibility by definition.

Another similar idea is what Daniel Dennett calls the homunculus; a little man who lives either inside our brain or in some ethereal realm who is who we are, and watches what we see on a kinda vision TV, and controls us remotely. Well, we know one doesn't live within our brain, and as I discussed previously, a homunculus that communicates with us through non-physical means is an impossibility. Maybe the homunculus lives in the physical world, and communicates through physical means? It is a possibility, but then that is now an area of science that would need to be investigated, and we have gathered no evidence so far to suggest that.


Now, I would like to elaborate on the above issue of the homunculus, and the often comfortable idea of dualism that we are susceptible to believing. Even I believed it in some form until recently; it is the natural position. We as thinking beings think we are something more than we actually are, or else we wouldn't feel as if we had a purpose and would most likely die out through processes of evolution. To elaborate on the issue of dualism, I will be taking an example from Daniel Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained".

Shakey is a robot that was developed somewhere in the late 1970's, and was a very smart robot for its time. It had a camera attached to a robot body that could move around. In specific conditions, it could detect particular shapes with its camera(eg. a box or a pyramid), move a ramp into place, push them up the ramp and off the edge of a platform that the ramp lead up.

Now at first sight, you could say Shakey had a mind of its own. Shakey's systems were completely contained within his robot body. There was no trickery, no radio signals by hidden homunculus(people) hiding behind the covers. However, the observers of Shakey had a unique insight; a monitor in which they could observe what Shakey saw.

Furthermore, they could see the processes in which Shakey accomplished what he did; taking the particularly lit scene, distinguishing the edges of the objects and applying vector calculations to search for angles that represented particular shapes(ie. triangles, squares). These processes would appear on the computer monitor, we were seeing inside of Shakeys mind. We were free to turn these monitors off at any time however, and disconnect them, and Shakey would still accomplish his task, without the need for an observer, some homunculus to watch on.

Daniel D then makes an interesting adaption where he merges another robot of the past with Shakey. This robot was a robot designed for language. It could recognise particular phrases, and then talk back with specific phrases associated to the phrases it heard.

Now what if you programmed Shakey with this new language module to respond when he was asked: "How do you detect the box infront of you?". He could respond in many ways:

1. "I capture multiple frames on my video camera, taking each frame, converting it to its binary analouge and applying a light filtering algorithm which applies a contrast distinguishing the dark edges from the light sides. I then take the linear approximations of these edges and apply vector algebra in order to work out specific angles made by the edges. From this data, I can match it with previously known angles to determine whether it is a box."

2. "I find the light-dark boundaries and draw white lines around them in my mind's eye; then I look at the vertices; if I find a Y vertex for instance, I know I have a box"

3. "I don't know; some things just look boxy. It just comes to me. It's by intuition".

If we look at this from the perspective of the human, we would respond with number 3. Lets say Shakey responded with #3. And lets say you then told him that you could see the processes that decide how he completes his task and explain to him the exact details about how he does what he does. He would probably respond "How dare you tell me how I think, I know how I think and it just comes to me!".

If you take this example and apply it to some of the things you take for granted; distinguishing objects, distances, colours ext, to us it feels like it is intuition; we don't actually think about it. But in reality there is most likely some complex chemical process behind it which we just don't have to be aware of, and there is no reason why we should feel as if there is a process.


If you would like to look further into a possible model of the consciousness(a philosophical discussion which proposed a possible model of consciousness which answers some of the difficult questions whilst staying consistent to science), I recommend you read Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained".

He provides his "multiple drafts" model in where our consciousness is like a daily news paper agency, where a new paper is produced every day. Content is shifted around, gathered from various locations, edited, cut, information from a certain date may arrive at a later date(however our retention of the previous date we would still retain) and eventually what is redundant is left out, and only the most important content gets through and forms the news paper; influencing our actual physical actions.

It is well worth the read.

I hope this provides a more interesting viewpoint into a physical consciousness, and I'm more than happy to attempt to answer any questions you may have.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟43,188.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I don't know how to solve the issue. I am just not committed to any a priori position that says that the mind body connection is improbable or some how logically aberrant. For all I know it is physically necessary that when we have functional brain, we have functional consciousness. We just don't know how to explain it.

I think physicalism is the best option to rule in. But there may be more to the physical then we currently know i.e. interacting or coordinated particles like dark matter that might help constitute conscious life. As for conclusiveness though, I am agnostic. I will leave that to the pixies.

However when it comes to the art of life I might believe in a soul as superveninient on the physical, and self as abstract object. In order to try and be consistent with faith. I am not for philosophical methodological fundamentalism, but am more of a postmodern. I try and live with the spirit of an non representitive artist who like Apollinaire or Pollock captures part of the essence of the beauty of truth but betrays the eyes insistence on being heard at the same time. Which is not to trivialise religion as aesthetic invention but to view the some of the best of human self realisation, including self knowledge, as something inherenltly beautiful but also elusive and therefore to be approached from many angles if we are to probably get a taste the truth. It might take 36 throws of the dice to get a double six. With the epistemic lights dimmed all we can do is catch a glimpse of higher truth perhaps without knowing it, and enjoy the game as we play.

Well I don't believe in a separate soul. We should search for the mind through science, but I think we should consider that the physical might have a aspect to it that we haven't detected yet, and this aspect is a mental component to all physical events.

Ive just sorta skimmed through the responses.

I dont pretend to be the smartest person but I got a sense that perhaps what you refer to may be your higher and lower consciousness. This is kinda hard for me to explain in a few paragraphs given that I have listened to many podcasts and read many books on the subject. Also, I apologise if this is not what you were referring to at all. My brain has the dumb but I couldnt resist this thread.

It's ok, I don't think anyone really knows what they are talking about on this subject. :p

It would appear that we have two bodies that are connected, and as a result we have two levels of consciousness. We have a physical body and we have what is commonly called a spiritual/astral body that is its counterpart. Its all connected. When people talk about higher consciousness they are often referring to the spiritual consciousness. Lower consciousness tends to refer more to the physical consciousness in which the conscious part of the brain plays a major role and I guess the subconcious does as well.

I hope I havent confused anyone with the way Ive worded this and I seriously hope I havent got it the wrong way round lol.

There is actually a strand of science that delves into this and parapsychology which is ridiculously interesting but rejected by mainstream science since it generally doesnt fit in with their theories.

Anyone who knows more on the subject - feel free to correct me.

Well I'm not sure I would agree we have two bodies. There doesn't seem to be a reason to believe there are two. But it could be the case that every atom is both physical and mental, and then in the right configuration it produces a mind.
 
Upvote 0

elephunky

Previously known as dgirl1986
Nov 28, 2007
5,497
203
Perth, Western Australia
✟29,441.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Well I'm not sure I would agree we have two bodies. There doesn't seem to be a reason to believe there are two. But it could be the case that every atom is both physical and mental, and then in the right configuration it produces a mind.

Have you heard much of astral projection? It is the practice of leaving your body while the body sleeps. The part of you that leaves in the astral/spirit body which is the counterpart to your physical body. It was through my researching this practice that I came across this kinda stuff.

Its been studied by science for some time. The earliest scientific book on the subject that I was able to find was published in 1917. I dont pretend to be smart with science or know atom talk (lol) but I do know there is a strand of science dedicated to investigating this.

I am not sure if you are familiar with chakras (which are a part of the spirit body) and I was told that they have been proved to exist by science though I have not come across anything that back this up. Just a thought.
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟43,188.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
I have to disagree that the purpose of philosophers in this field is becoming less prominent. Day by day, science is discovering new ways that our brain works, in the physical reality. Our brain works in weird and wonderful ways.

I agree, but that really doesn't explain experience. Even when science completely explains the way we think and act through out brains, that still doesn't tell us why we experience the world. For example, we aren't robots who just follow a program, we actually feel sensation. So the question is, how can the movement of particles creates the sensation colour. Why do I see and feel rather than merely react like a robot.

Firstly however, I will raise the complications of the body-mind problem if you choose an alternative other than a entirely material brain.

The assumption with the mind-body problem(which I believe you are referring to) is that the mind is separate from the body; a kind of dualism. I will be raising the problems on dualism which involves a metaphysical mind; one outside of our physical reality. Unless you believe in some other form of dualism(perhaps a physical mind disconnected from our physical brain, which is not a good position to hold), this should be a good argument against what you think.

I'm not sure you understand my position, but that it probably because I didn't explain it properly.

I accept that the brain controls everything we do. No other explain of our action is needed other than our brain. But the problem is that we don't just think (without knowing we think) and act like robots. A robot may be able to identify and pick up a box, but that doesn't mean it can actually see the box and experience the sensation of sight.

My point is that perhaps the difference between body and mind is similar to the difference between electricity and magnetism. They were once thought to be different, but then we found out that they are the same thing, electromagnetism. When electricity runs through a coil it produces magnetism. Perhaps the brain is like the coil, and when matter is in the right configuration it produces an experiencing thing (the Self). Perhaps atoms (for example) are both physical and phenomenological, but we only sense the physical with our physical instruments. So maybe the physical and the phenomenological (experience) are the same, and this will be discovered by the Theory of Everything.

One of the major notions of dualism, specially cartesian dualism is the pineal gland. This particular form of dualism was invented by De'Carte many years ago(however many people still believe in it today). The concepts that I will discuss can be extrapolated to other forms of dualism however.

The problem we are faced with dualism is that there must be some way to communicate between the mind and body. If the mind is non-physical, it is an impossibility to communicate between the mind and body, as it is an impossibility for something non-physical to interact with something physical(which is the only mechanism of information transferral). So the idea that there is some non-physical mind that is connected to our body(by the pineal gland by the Cartesian view) is an impossibility by definition.

Another similar idea is what Daniel Dennett calls the homunculus; a little man who lives either inside our brain or in some ethereal realm who is who we are, and watches what we see on a kinda vision TV, and controls us remotely. Well, we know one doesn't live within our brain, and as I discussed previously, a homunculus that communicates with us through non-physical means is an impossibility. Maybe the homunculus lives in the physical world, and communicates through physical means? It is a possibility, but then that is now an area of science that would need to be investigated, and we have gathered no evidence so far to suggest that.


Now, I would like to elaborate on the above issue of the homunculus, and the often comfortable idea of dualism that we are susceptible to believing. Even I believed it in some form until recently; it is the natural position. We as thinking beings think we are something more than we actually are, or else we wouldn't feel as if we had a purpose and would most likely die out through processes of evolution. To elaborate on the issue of dualism, I will be taking an example from Daniel Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained".

Shakey is a robot that was developed somewhere in the late 1970's, and was a very smart robot for its time. It had a camera attached to a robot body that could move around. In specific conditions, it could detect particular shapes with its camera(eg. a box or a pyramid), move a ramp into place, push them up the ramp and off the edge of a platform that the ramp lead up.

Now at first sight, you could say Shakey had a mind of its own. Shakey's systems were completely contained within his robot body. There was no trickery, no radio signals by hidden homunculus(people) hiding behind the covers. However, the observers of Shakey had a unique insight; a monitor in which they could observe what Shakey saw.

Furthermore, they could see the processes in which Shakey accomplished what he did; taking the particularly lit scene, distinguishing the edges of the objects and applying vector calculations to search for angles that represented particular shapes(ie. triangles, squares). These processes would appear on the computer monitor, we were seeing inside of Shakeys mind. We were free to turn these monitors off at any time however, and disconnect them, and Shakey would still accomplish his task, without the need for an observer, some homunculus to watch on.

Daniel D then makes an interesting adaption where he merges another robot of the past with Shakey. This robot was a robot designed for language. It could recognise particular phrases, and then talk back with specific phrases associated to the phrases it heard.

Now what if you programmed Shakey with this new language module to respond when he was asked: "How do you detect the box infront of you?". He could respond in many ways:

1. "I capture multiple frames on my video camera, taking each frame, converting it to its binary analouge and applying a light filtering algorithm which applies a contrast distinguishing the dark edges from the light sides. I then take the linear approximations of these edges and apply vector algebra in order to work out specific angles made by the edges. From this data, I can match it with previously known angles to determine whether it is a box."

2. "I find the light-dark boundaries and draw white lines around them in my mind's eye; then I look at the vertices; if I find a Y vertex for instance, I know I have a box"

3. "I don't know; some things just look boxy. It just comes to me. It's by intuition".

If we look at this from the perspective of the human, we would respond with number 3. Lets say Shakey responded with #3. And lets say you then told him that you could see the processes that decide how he completes his task and explain to him the exact details about how he does what he does. He would probably respond "How dare you tell me how I think, I know how I think and it just comes to me!".

If you take this example and apply it to some of the things you take for granted; distinguishing objects, distances, colours ext, to us it feels like it is intuition; we don't actually think about it. But in reality there is most likely some complex chemical process behind it which we just don't have to be aware of, and there is no reason why we should feel as if there is a process.

But the problem isn't how we know what a box is. I can accept that it is our brains that figure out what a box is. The question is how we feel the sensation of seeing a box.

If you would like to look further into a possible model of the consciousness(a philosophical discussion which proposed a possible model of consciousness which answers some of the difficult questions whilst staying consistent to science), I recommend you read Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained".

He provides his "multiple drafts" model in where our consciousness is like a daily news paper agency, where a new paper is produced every day. Content is shifted around, gathered from various locations, edited, cut, information from a certain date may arrive at a later date(however our retention of the previous date we would still retain) and eventually what is redundant is left out, and only the most important content gets through and forms the news paper; influencing our actual physical actions.

It is well worth the read.

I hope this provides a more interesting viewpoint into a physical consciousness, and I'm more than happy to attempt to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you for your reply, I hope you see what I mean with my reply.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
How do you understand the mind/ body problem. That is, the fact that mental experiences seem so unlike physical events but nevertheless seem to be connected. How can they be connect when they are so utterly and totally different in type? How can the movement of particles make me experience colour and touch in my consciousness?

I really don't know, but the closest answer I can make a guess towards is that perhaps all physical events intrinsically have a mental aspect to them. So the physical doesn't cause the mental, but rather they are both two different sides of the same thing. Reality is intrinsically both physical and mental, but we can only sense the external physical world because it is only our physical bodies that have the tools to investigate the world around it.

Edit: eg: Like the magnetism and electricity were once thought to be different, they are now both considered to be the same thing, electromagnetism.

That doesn't give a proper theoretical basis to understand the mind/ body problem, but it seems better than just assuming that only the material brain exists.

But perhaps I'm talking nonsense. ;)

The significant function is only one way: your mind/feeling is affected by the outside physical environment, includes the condition and activity of your body. The effect of the other way (you think/feel, so you act) is a rather normal function of life.
 
Upvote 0

ADTClone

Newbie
Oct 6, 2012
103
2
✟22,744.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I agree, but that really doesn't explain experience. Even when science completely explains the way we think and act through out brains, that still doesn't tell us why we experience the world. For example, we aren't robots who just follow a program, we actually feel sensation. So the question is, how can the movement of particles creates the sensation colour. Why do I see and feel rather than merely react like a robot.



I'm not sure you understand my position, but that it probably because I didn't explain it properly.

I accept that the brain controls everything we do. No other explain of our action is needed other than our brain. But the problem is that we don't just think (without knowing we think) and act like robots. A robot may be able to identify and pick up a box, but that doesn't mean it can actually see the box and experience the sensation of sight.

My point is that perhaps the difference between body and mind is similar to the difference between electricity and magnetism. They were once thought to be different, but then we found out that they are the same thing, electromagnetism. When electricity runs through a coil it produces magnetism. Perhaps the brain is like the coil, and when matter is in the right configuration it produces an experiencing thing (the Self). Perhaps atoms (for example) are both physical and phenomenological, but we only sense the physical with our physical instruments. So maybe the physical and the phenomenological (experience) are the same, and this will be discovered by the Theory of Everything.



But the problem isn't how we know what a box is. I can accept that it is our brains that figure out what a box is. The question is how we feel the sensation of seeing a box.



Thank you for your reply, I hope you see what I mean with my reply.

I do understand your position a lot more clearly(thank "god" no Cartesian dualism), and it is a position that most human beings have. It's a position that I'm still getting around, but I do not wish to presuppose something outside of our known reality.

The problem I see is that we as human beings think we are thinking beings, that we are special. You think you are you and can feel and think from your perspective. You feel like a single person, and this is inconsistent with what you see in reality, how everything is simply made up of particles which have no "self", yet you are a collection of particles and seem to have a self, and other people seem to have different selfs.


Anyway, I think we see eye to eye with this. Now what it does seem you suppose is a homunculus, as I described previously. Some being that experiences what happens to our body, sees the information that comes through our eyes. This homunculus is the one that feels the "feelings" and experiences the "emotions".

As for the possibility of a physical and phenomenological side of atoms per say, we can assume the phenomenological side to be the homunculus(the being that feels and experiences). Hence it will be under the same questions I will now ask to determine the nature of your homunculus:

1. Is your homunculus physical or non-physical? More specifically, would it be possible for science to observe this homunculus?
2. How does your homunculus interact with the physical body if it interacts with the physical body at all?

I will now raise at least one example which relate to dualism, but also relate to the homunculus idea. These examples may raise problems with your homunculus(we will find out).

a) The sleepwalker problem

When a person is sleep walking, they claim to be unconscious of what they are doing. They do not experience, feel or see what they do. But evidently, their body can act fully independent of their consciousness, often doing normal things, such as running, avoiding obstacles.

What happens to the homunculus during this "sleep walk", or even sleep in general? Does the homunculus fall to sleep, ignore what is happening?

b) Imaginary pain

Ever had a dream where in your dream you suffer some sort of pain. That pain feels real in that dream, and you suddenly wake up and realise the pain isn't really there?

If our homunculus is an experiencing being, how does it experience imaginary pain in the same way as it experiences real pain generated from nervous impulses in our body? Does the homunculus dream, or does the brain dream? Clearly if the homunculus associates the same imaginary pain to real pain, how come it can't distinguish them?

c) The perfect drawing

This may not apply directly to your view, but if you also believe that this homunculus is a thinking thing which can make decisions on what our body does, this is a serious problem.

Ever tried to draw the perfect drawing? It is a challenge for human beings to draw say, an exact recreation of the computer/phone/laptop infront of you. Or perfectly draw the exact angles, shapes and curvature of an object. Only certain people; artists, have the ability to do this.

Though if we had a homunculus that could see everything and observe what we could see, wouldn't it be able to draw the perfect drawing? It'd be like transcribing a drawing from paper to another sheet of paper.


That is enough examples for now. It's time that we investigate your homunculus in some more detail to try to see if it is really a plausible and reasonable possibility.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟553,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I agree, but that really doesn't explain experience. Even when science completely explains the way we think and act through out brains, that still doesn't tell us why we experience the world. For example, we aren't robots who just follow a program, we actually feel sensation.

Or maybe that's just what you're programmed to think by genetics and brain chemistry.

Can you explain what distinction you're making here by including "actually" in the description? Perhaps "actually" feeling sensation really does boil down to a set of chemical interactions in the brain. Why rule out this option?

I accept that the brain controls everything we do. No other explain of our action is needed other than our brain. But the problem is that we don't just think (without knowing we think) and act like robots. A robot may be able to identify and pick up a box, but that doesn't mean it can actually see the box and experience the sensation of sight.

Just like you can never use a set of CCD-produced signals processed by silicon microchips running computer code to actually see the box and experience the sensation of sight. Here you're just telling us that robots are different from us meat-bags. True, but that doesn't mean that robots using their sensors and processing equipment to react to visible light is fundamentally, deeply different than ours.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟163,194.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The taste, smell, and colour of an apple can't be explained by atoms because an apple doesn't objective have those things.

Not on its own, of course. Those would emerge from the interaction between the apple and your senses. You're still left with no indication that there's anything other than physical stuff going on.

Actually, it's only really a problem for dualism.

In monism, when talking about mental vs. physical phenomena, all you're really talking about is a shift in perspective. I can have the mental experience of deciding to bite the apple, and you, the observer, can observe the physical result. We have differing but complementary perspectives of the same event.

In dualism, you're left with an immense obstacle: how does the 'non-physical' causally interact with the physical?

You will have to further explain what it is you think we know.

We know that every relevant study on the subject has indicated that minds are the product of physical brains. Dualists in neuroscience are about as common as young earth creationists in biology.

Many philosophers recognize that we still don't understand how the mind and body are connected.

I'm much more interested in what neuroscience has to say, but the trend in philosophy is also toward monism, especially in the last fifty years.

More to the point, I don't deny there are still questions, but all of the answers that we have so far point to monism.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟163,194.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There is actually a strand of science that delves into this and parapsychology which is ridiculously interesting but rejected by mainstream science since it generally doesnt fit in with their theories.

Actually, it's rejected for the same reason all pseudoscience is rejected - it doesn't stand up to the most basic scrutiny.

Have you heard much of astral projection?... Its been studied by science for some time.

The only evidence for it is anecdotal. In as far as it has been studied by science under controlled conditions, it has failed.

I am not sure if you are familiar with chakras (which are a part of the spirit body) and I was told that they have been proved to exist by science

You were lied to.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
We know that every relevant study on the subject has indicated that minds are the product of physical brains.
Or that it is in harmony with changes in baryonic matter in brains. So the consciousness may not result from protons electrons and neutrons, quarks, antiquarks etc, yet still be an undiscovered physical phenomenon. Which we do not normally associate with brain-system models because we only see a fraction of the particles involved. Maybe.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
46
Dallas, Texas
✟29,530.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
How do you understand the mind/ body problem. That is, the fact that mental experiences seem so unlike physical events but nevertheless seem to be connected. How can they be connect when they are so utterly and totally different in type? How can the movement of particles make me experience colour and touch in my consciousness?
How can the process in the brain due to atoms we call the mind be connected to the particles that make up said brain? Assuming I understand the question, I'd say in the same way a video game, database, or computer program can be connected to a bunch of silicon, plastic, gold, etc. How can the movement of particles allow a computer to detect, analyze, and categorize external stimuli such as sound, movement, radiation, pressure, light, etc?

Where's the disconnect? What exactly is the problem about neurons, electrocity, and some ions creating what we call experience, mind, consciousness, etc?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
How do you understand the mind/ body problem. That is, the fact that mental experiences seem so unlike physical events but nevertheless seem to be connected. How can they be connect when they are so utterly and totally different in type? How can the movement of particles make me experience colour and touch in my consciousness?

Well regardless of discussions of "the mind" your brain is specifically for experiencing information from the senses.

There is no problem if the mind is how you subjectively experience the brain.
 
Upvote 0