body-body problem

[GrowingSmaller]

I have heard of the mind-body problem which asks "how does a immaterial soul interact with or effect change in the material body? What mechanism is there?"

But I want to know how does a material object interact with another material object? I expect you might say there is contact or fields interacting, and take us to a more fundamental level of physics. But I can ask "why or how is that?" ad infinitum. I expect that somewhere along the line the answer will be "We don't know!"

Would it be fair to characterise this eventual situation, if it actually exists, as a "body-body" problem for theories of physical-material causation?

BTW is "mechanism" actually still widely regarded in the philosophy of science as it was in the time of Newton or Descartes I believe, or does it belong to the graveyard of outdated ideas? If it is outmoded, then would it really be fair for the dualist (believer in immaterial soul and material body) to be required to provide a mechanistic explanation of mind-body interaction as if that were in the spirit of science. If that is so it would seem at first glance to be an instance of double standards (requiring proof of mechanism for soul-body interactions but not for body-body interactions).

 

[AV1611VET]

If I remember correctly, the strength of a field is measured by the amount of energy required to change it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thank you for that comment. But why should energy "magically" change a field? If I say soul body causation happens just-like-that, and that is regarded as unacceptable, then is it not also equally unacceptble to say energy changes a field just-like-that?

 

[Jazer]

But I want to know how does a material object interact with another material object?

Do you mean mind over matter? Construction workers see it all the time. They just do not talk about it very much. The Phd will not be able to help you because they deal in theory and do not have much experience in dealing with the real world. It is the workers that apply those theories and know how to get them to work in the real world. I have some photos of construction workers building a bridge across the river. It is amazing they can get those big heavy pieces to line up and that they are able to hammer those pins in.

 

[Naraoia]

Everything is made of maths B)

You know, that is an interesting question. As far as I can tell, you can always ask one more "why". So what makes one "I don't know" different from another? I'd say it is the ability to make predictions. Say you don't know how souls interact with bodies and you don't know how gluons hold quarks together. You do still have a mathematical description of the latter, which allows you to make specific predictions. Thus, you can (to some extent) distinguish between worlds where gluons exist and worlds where they don't, even if you don't know what gluons "really" are. Can you do the same for souls?

(Incidentally, I feel like we're about to drive past a huge road sign pointing to Absurdum... )

 

[fenix144]

Do you mean mind over matter? Construction workers see it all the time. They just do not talk about it very much. The Phd will not be able to help you because they deal in theory and do not have much experience in dealing with the real world. It is the workers that apply those theories and know how to get them to work in the real world. I have some photos of construction workers building a bridge across the river. It is amazing they can get those big heavy pieces to line up and that they are able to hammer those pins in.

sighsighsighsighsighsighsighsighsighsighsighsighsighsighsighsighsighsighsigh

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

 

[Jazer]

Can you do the same for souls?

All mammals have a soul. It is the spiritual that makes a difference. Psychology can make a lot of predictions when it comes to the soul. They can test or measure but they can not do much to bring about any change.

 

[Jazer]

used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

So are you saying the more accurate the prediction the better your chance is of getting it to work in the real world? What we use to call the rubber meets the road.

 

[qualitas occulta]

The difference between the mind-body problem and your "body-body" problem is that we know the mechanics of physical substances interacting with each other, even though the teleological ones are still up for a matter of debate (and not within the realms of science, but philosophy), while we don't even have the slightest clue of the mechanics of souls and bodies interacting, if at all the former exist.

Just because we don't know why physical substances interact the way they do doesn't relegate it to the same level as the mind-body contention.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Everything is made of maths B)

You know, that is an interesting question. As far as I can tell, you can always ask one more "why". So what makes one "I don't know" different from another? I'd say it is the ability to make predictions. Say you don't know how souls interact with bodies and you don't know how gluons hold quarks together. You do still have a mathematical description of the latter, which allows you to make specific predictions. Thus, you can (to some extent) distinguish between worlds where gluons exist and worlds where they don't, even if you don't know what gluons "really" are. Can you do the same for souls?

The stonger I will to push (form 0 to 10) the harder the force on the object will be. That is a mathematical (or pseudomathematical) desciption of mental causation. Could it be a candidate for a "mechanical" outline of soul-body interaction?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The difference between the mind-body problem and your "body-body" problem is that we know the mechanics of physical substances interacting with each other, even though the teleological ones are still up for a matter of debate (and not within the realms of science, but philosophy), while we don't even have the slightest clue of the mechanics of souls and bodies interacting, if at all the former exist.

What "mechanics" do we know? We might know of observable laws, for instance the one mentioned by AVET in post #2, but that's apparently to me just observing and knowing covariations and describing them mathematically. The reason why, or the basis for how they covary cannot be explained by pointing out more laws or more covariations. That tactic misses the point.

If there are laws of physics describing such which indicate a mechanism, what about "laws" of mind body interaction, like the covariation between my willing to move my hand and the movement of the hand, and the harder I will to push ona scale of 1 to 10 the stronger the push. Does these "laws" mean there is a mechanism between mind and body after all? From what I understand if physical laws indicate mechanism (whatever "mechanism" actually means ontologically speaking, rather than mathematicaly, I am not sure), then mind-body laws described mathematically in a similar fashion (relating to will and action, or pain intensity and resultant avoidance behavior) might indicate a soul body "mechanism", no?

Just because we don't know why physical substances interact the way they do doesn't relegate it to the same level as the mind-body contention.

Well there is an analogy then?

 

[qualitas occulta]

What "mechanics" do we know? We might know of observable laws, for instance the one mentioned by AVET in post #2, but that's apparently to me just observing and knowing covariations and describing them mathematically. The reason why, or the basis for how they covary cannot be explained by pointing out more laws or more covariations. That tactic misses the point.

The same "observable laws" (me thinking of moving my hand moving my hand) applies should we suppose someone has a soul-mind, as opposed to someone having a purely physical mind (brain). Why is the positing of an immaterial mind necessary in the first place when the mind as brain sufficiently supports our observations?

Ifthere are laws of physics describing such, what about "laws" of mind body interaction, like the covariation between my willing to move my hand and the movement of the hand. Does this "law" mean there is a mechanism between mind and body after all? From what I understand if physical laws indicate mechanism (whatever "mechanism" actually means ontologically speaking, I am not sure), then psychological laws (relating to will and action, or pain and avoidance behavior) might indicate a soul body "mechanism", no?

Well there is an analogy then?

GrowingSmaller, are you certain of what the mind-body problem is? The "mind" here isn't the normal way mind is used, rather, it's the problem of the relationship between an immaterial substance (mind as soul) and the body. For a physicalist, mind is equated with the brain. Will/action/pain/avoidance are all explainable in terms of physical phenomena. Psychology doesn't presuppose anything immaterial. That's theology.

Besides, Descartes got it wrong when he said that the mind was indivisible as opposed to physical objects being divisible (can't really blame him though, as Roger Sperry wasn't to exist until a couple hundred years later). Split a person's brain into two and you have a split consciousness. Transplant those halves into two separate bodies and you have two nominally functional humans who certainly don't share the same "mind", unless provision of a telepathic solution is made.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The same "observable laws" (me thinking of moving my hand moving my hand) applies should we suppose someone has a soul-mind, as opposed to someone having a purely physical mind (brain). Why is the positing of an immaterial mind necessary in the first place when the mind as brain sufficiently supports our observations.

I agree that Occams Razor can be used to eliminate the immaterial soul from the model (if there was actually anything substantial there the first palce, lol).

However that is not the argument anti-Cartesians normally use. They, in my experience, ask for a "mechanism" by which the soul acts on or interacts with the body. I am just addressing that argument. What is a mechanism anyway? Isn't mechanistic metaphysics mysterious and magical in its own way? If the answer to the question "Why does one cog in a machine interact with another?" is "...it just does!" that's not much of an explanation is it? However if I say the soul affects the body because "...it just does" there would be uproar.

 

[qualitas occulta]

It seems that you're conflating "how" with "why" here. We know how the material mind interacts with the body--through a series of electrochemical signals, although we may not a definite answer as to why it does so. We don't know how the soul interacts with the body--and since we can't even know how we're left twice in the dark with the lack of a "why".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It seems that you're conflating "how" with "why" here. We know how the material mind interacts with the body--through a series of electrochemical signals,

And how do they interact?

although we may not a definite answer as to why it does so.

Ok Roger.

We don't know how the soul interacts with the body--and since we can't even know how we're left twice in the dark with the lack of a "why".

The soul interacts through willing. Is that not adequate?

 

[qualitas occulta]

How do electrochemical signals interact with each other? Search "neurons" on Google.

You are asking why they interact if you are expecting a further answer, not how, since repeating the question "how" would only provide the same repeated answer and nothing further would be gained than a tautology.

And explain what do you mean by "willing".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

How do electrochemical signals interact with each other? Search "neurons" on Google.

You are asking why they interact if you are expecting a further answer, not how, since repeating the question "how" would only provide the same repeated answer and nothing further would be gained than a tautology.

Ok I get you ty. The differenc between how and why. I sense an sunset.

And explain what do you mean by "willing".

Google definition of "will":

Intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen: "he was doing what the saint willed".

 

[Naraoia]

All mammals have a soul. It is the spiritual that makes a difference. Psychology can make a lot of predictions when it comes to the soul. They can test or measure but they can not do much to bring about any change.

Way to miss the point. Psychologists don't talk about souls precisely because they cannot test or measure souls. If you are suggesting that the soul is a testable concept,

The stonger I will to push (form 0 to 10) the harder the force on the object will be. That is a mathematical (or pseudomathematical) desciption of mental causation. Could it be a candidate for a "mechanical" outline of soul-body interaction?

Right. Now, how does this differ from the predictions of the "materialistic" model of the mind?

The problem is Occam's Razor. We have at least a rough idea which parts of the brain are involved in instructing muscles to do stuff, and I'm pretty sure also which parts are involved in wanting to do stuff. We can measure activity in these areas under different circumstances, and I'm sure just kind of wishing to push an object and really really wanting to move an object cause different levels of activity. It's quite reasonable to assume that the electrical activity in the brain results in the electrical signal that makes your muscles push an object.

Do we need a soul in the equation? Do souls provide any extra that "soulless" explanations don't?

 

[qualitas occulta]

Intend, desire, or wish (something) to happen: "he was doing what the saint willed".

And how does intent connect the soul to the body?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

And how does intent connect the soul to the body?

I don't know, but statistics might describe the relationship, like mechanical relationships are sometimes meant to be I think. Which was my point but I think that you have exposed a flaw with the how why line of questioning, and said there was an end to "how"s somewhere.