body-body problem

[GrowingSmaller]

Well, I think there´s a time in life (when you are around 3 years old) to exhaustively explore "why?" questions and eventually learn that this technique only goes so far.

So "shut up" is the answer. Or is it more humbly "we don't know"?

An object doesn´t fall because it obeys the law of gravitation. We observe mechanisms and call them "laws". We have found out why objects fall down instead of floating around. Gravitation theory explains it satisfactorily.

Not to me. Why does a apple fall - because of gravity affecting it. Why does gravity affect it? Because it has mass. Why does gravity affect objects with mass? Eventually I think you would prefer to tell me to shut up and us the ad hominem label of "infantile" rather than admit no one knows. Where do the laws come from, and why laws rather than chaos, or intermittent 'laws' then breaches? Maybe its a mystery, even to science, or should I shut up, grow up and start towing the line?

No, I am saying that they are loaded with false premises.

Like what?

 

[sandwiches]

Look I know thaere is not much evidence for the soul etc, but i would like to stay on another topic rather than be humiliated in a debate on the mind. Why does matter behave lawfully? Why does it not just breach "natural law" (e.g. gravitation) rather than obey rules?

There is no "law" that matter is obeying, as far as we can detect. It's acting the way it does and since it always seems to act in that specific way (i.e. falling) we call this consistent behavior "laws." It's not that matter can't do something else; it's that we've never observed it doing anything else.

 

[acropolis]

I am not sure how we got dfrom a discussion about not knowing why mater interacts with matter according to certain laws, to discussions about IPUs.I am fully familiar with all that stuff, but would like to know why mattar behaves. That seems to be a mystery that needs explaining.

Introducing a 'soul' into the equation will not illuminate anything about why matters behaves. You could just as easily invoke 'god' or 'angels' to fill in whatever gaps you want, but given the total lack of evidence all those explanations are equally lacking in support. There are philosophical/scientific theories for 'why' everything works the way it does. Have you engaged with those yet?

 

[quatona]

So "shut up" is the answer. Or is it more humbly "we don't know"?

Whose answer?

My answer (if you insist on reducing it to a catchy slogan) would be rather: "That´s just the way it is."

Not to me. Why does a apple fall - because of gravity affecting it. Why does gravity affect it? Because it has mass. Why does gravity affect objects with mass?

So what sort of answer are you looking for? Could you give me a - hypothetical - answer of the kind that would end this infinite regress of asking "why?" and that you would accept as "That´s the way it is."?

Eventually I think you would prefer to tell me to shut up and us the ad hominem label of "infantile" rather than admit no one knows.

Shut up was your proposal, not mine.

Where do the laws come from, and why laws rather than chaos, or intermittent 'laws' then breaches?

Why would I expect the universe to be chaotic? Why would I expect it to be ordered? This is the only universe I know, I can´t compare it to any other, and therefore I don´t have any expectations. I am not surprised that it works the way it works. I don´t think there needs to be a reason. I can ask "why?" as long as I am looking for reasons within the closed system I am part of (and the universe is *all there is* - so I don´t even expect there to be a meta-system in regards to which the "why?"-question would become meaningful).

Maybe its a mystery, even to science, or should I shut up, grow up and start towing the line?

Since you are asking for my advice: I think you would be better off considering the answers that you get.
If you have fun getting lost in the infinite regress of asking "why?" ad nauseum - be my guest. To each their own.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thanks quatona.

Thats just the way it is.

Ok.

Now if I say "the soul interacts with the body, thats just the way it is" people are possibly going to go bonkers talking about magical explanations and garden fairies.

So are there double standards at work?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

There are philosophical/scientific theories for 'why' everything works the way it does. Have you engaged with those yet?

Please direct me, I dont know even what they are called.

 

[quatona]

Thanks quatona.

Thats just the way it is.

No biggie. I´m always happy to help.

Now if I say "the soul interacts with the body, thats just the way it is" people are possibly going to go bonkers talking about magical explanations and garden fairies.

If you want to know what people will tell you, please ask them.

If you want my response: Matter and natural laws and are observable and observed.
Concerning the existence of a soul, the jury is still out. Not to mention an explanation of the mechanisms of interaction. All of which is explained when it comes to matter and natural laws.
So we are far from a stage where we could even ask the (analogous) question "Why does the soul interact with the body?". We haven´t even established that it does. We haven´t even established that there is a soul, in the first place.

As soon as these observations and explanations are provided for in your case I will be willing to hold the two issues to the same standard.

P.S.: Did you read the rest of my post?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

P.S.: Did you read the rest of my post?

Yes good posts. Was there anything in particular I might comment on? I am tending to agree, but am sure my mental Bruce Lee might find a vulnerable looking concrete block or two. ANd there's be, comlaining about social attitudes towards violenve.

 

[KCfromNC]

I was asked or an example of awareness of a soul. Well if the soul exists, then self awareness seems to be a candidate.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know until we get an explanation of what this soul allegedly is and what it's supposed to be doing.

What about maths?

Did you have a particular question about mathematics? It's a rather large field.

 

[KCfromNC]

Now if I say "the soul interacts with the body, thats just the way it is" people are possibly going to go bonkers talking about magical explanations and garden fairies.

So are there double standards at work?

No, because there's solid evidence that apples exist and fall according to specific patterns. We don't even have an idea of what evidence for a soul would be, much less actual evidence to support your idea. Big difference.

 

[sandwiches]

Thanks quatona.

Thats just the way it is.

Ok.

Now if I say "the soul interacts with the body, thats just the way it is" people are possibly going to go bonkers talking about magical explanations and garden fairies.

So are there double standards at work?

We see body-body interactions every single day. You're asking why they occur and we're saying there might not be a deeper reason that they simply do.

We see no body-soul interactions and yet you're asking if we can use the same reason for why they occur? Why WHAT occurs? What body-soul interactions? Point to us a soul-body interaction so that 1) We can see what this "soul" you keep talking about is and 2) We can examine the interaction and try to figure out why it occurs.

 

[quatona]

Yes good posts. Was there anything in particular I might comment on?

Thanks for asking and offering.
Yes, I would be particularly interested in a response to my questions in post #64.
I´ll try to reword them in a more systematic way:

1. Would you agree that any given response to any given "why?" question can - at least technically - be met with yet another "why?"-question?
2. If so, how do you propose to deal with this fact?
3. Would you agree that the infinite regress of "why?" question mght eventually come to a point where the next "why?" question is meaningless, pointless, paradox and/or simply not worthwhile?
4. If so, which of it and when would you think this point is reached?
5. Would you agree that there is a fundamental change of meaning of "why...?" at the point where - while it used to ask for explaining mechanisms - these mechanisms are explained and the "why...?" begins to ask "Why are there mechanisms?"?
6. Do you think it´s possible that at any point in a given series of "Why?"-questions you are satisfied with the answer in that you stop asking and accept the explanation as a "That´s just the way it is?"
7. Would you agree that within a closed system this system itself defies an explanation that would make sense by means of the paradigms within the system? Or vice versa: That - given there were some kind of explanation as to how or why the closed system works the way it works - this would not be accepted as an explanation from within the system? (Practical example: Would you agree that the answer to the question how/why/whether/if the universe exists can not be expected to be answerable based on the conditions observed within the universe?)
8. If so, would you agree that describing this fact as "miracle" is a tad too pompous and romantic?

Here´s an example to illustrate the problem:
"Why...?" most of the time asks for a causal explanation. However, at the point where the chain of "Why?" questions comes to the point of asking "Why does the law of cause and effect exist?" (which is pretty much the sort of question you keep insisting on asking, isn´t it?), you have stopped asking for a causal explanation (unless you are deliberately provoking a paradox or self-reference), and obviously are asking a fundamentally different question (i.e. changed the meaning of "why").
And this gets me to the last question:

9. What sort of explanation are you asking for when asking "Why are things the way they are in the universe?". What would a satisfactory answer have to be like?

 

[Phred]

I've read through this entire thread. I feel not unlike I've been bumping my head against a wall of assumptions.

First off, never accept, "Because it does" as an answer to anything.

Next, the mind/body controversy. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a "soul". I'll attempt to simplify as I don't wish to type for days. Ask yourself, do you exist in your body or your brain? You seem to see out of your body from behind your eyes. It would be easy to say you exist in your brain. I can take you through various scenarios that would make you reconsider how and where your consciousness lies. None of which have anything to do with a "soul". Because a "soul" is an imaginary construct. Neither you nor I have any idea what a "soul" is. Without evidence for the existence of a "soul" it does not come into consideration.

Bodies interact because the space between the matter that comprises them is too compact to allow other matter to pass through.

I've seen difficulty with the concept of the "soul". Please understand that this is an imaginary concept. There is no evidence to suggest such a thing exists. It is, like God, faith-based. There is no reason to suggest such a thing exists outside of religion. Words like "metaphysics" are irrelevant here. I saw the comment, "all mammals have a soul." That's... silly. There's no reason to suggest that a mammal is any different than a lizard or a bird when it comes to owning an imaginary trait.

One cannot make an assumption, "Souls exist" without evidence that souls do indeed exist. The concept of pink unicorns was used to try and show that, like a pink unicorn there was no evidence for either. I believe this concept went over the heads of most observers.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thanks for asking and offering.
Yes, I would be particularly interested in a response to my questions in post #64.
I´ll try to reword them in a more systematic way:

1. Would you agree that any given response to any given "why?" question can - at least technically - be met with yet another "why?"-question?

Yes I assume so.

2. If so, how do you propose to deal with this fact?

What do you want tome to do?

3. Would you agree that the infinite regress of "why?" question mght eventually come to a point where the next "why?" question is meaningless, pointless, paradox and/or simply not worthwhile?

Thats a loft odf "or"s. I suppose that one chain can of course become pointless, practically speaking.

4. If so, which of it and when would you think this point is reached?

That would depend on context. IE on that I wanted to know and for what reason.

5. Would you agree that there is a fundamental change of meaning of "why...?" at the point where - while it used to ask for explaining mechanisms - these mechanisms are explained and the "why...?" begins to ask "Why are there mechanisms?"?

"Why" I suppose means "for what reason. I dont see any fundamental change.

6. Do you think it´s possible that at any point in a given series of "Why?"-questions you are satisfied with the answer in that you stop asking and accept the explanation as a "That´s just the way it is?"

Its relative and dependent on context. If I want to know why there is milk on the floor I might not need an explanation of fundamental physics. On the other hand there are contexts where it would be proper.

7. Would you agree that within a closed system this system itself defies an explanation that would make sense by means of the paradigms within the system?

I dont understand that quesiton, sorry.

Or vice versa: That - given there were some kind of explanation as to how or why the closed system works the way it works - this would not be accepted as an explanation from within the system? (Practical example: Would you agree that the answer to the question how/why/whether/if the universe exists can not be expected to be answerable based on the conditions observed within the universe?)

Ditto, sorry.

8. If so, would you agree that describing this fact as "miracle" is a tad too pompous and romantic?

I cant answer that one sorry, bacause I dont understand the last two quesitons.

Here´s an example to illustrate the problem:
"Why...?" most of the time asks for a causal explanation. However, at the point where the chain of "Why?" questions comes to the point of asking "Why does the law of cause and effect exist?" (which is pretty much the sort of question you keep insisting on asking, isn´t it?), you have stopped asking for a causal explanation (unless you are deliberately provoking a paradox or self-reference), and obviously are asking a fundamentally different question (i.e. changed the meaning of "why").

But either that is a reason or there is not. Can we know?

And this gets me to the last question:

9. What sort of explanation are you asking for when asking "Why are things the way they are in the universe?". What would a satisfactory answer have to be like?

I am not sure, I am not an expert in the field. If you are looking for some guidance, it is new territory to me.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I've read through this entire thread. I feel not unlike I've been bumping my head against a wall of assumptions.

Congratulations then.

First off, never accept, "Because it does" as an answer to anything.

Ok.

Next, the mind/body controversy. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a "soul". I'll attempt to simplify as I don't wish to type for days. Ask yourself, do you exist in your body or your brain? You seem to see out of your body from behind your eyes. It would be easy to say you exist in your brain. I can take you through various scenarios that would make you reconsider how and where your consciousness lies. None of which have anything to do with a "soul".

Ok.

Because a "soul" is an imaginary construct.

may well be.

Neither you nor I have any idea what a "soul" is.

Consciousness which can travel from one life (embodiment) to the next?

Without evidence for the existence of a "soul" it does not come into consideration.

Mozart the musical child prodigy?

Bodies interact because the space between the matter that comprises them is too compact to allow other matter to pass through.

Why should they bother about obeying rules?

I've seen difficulty with the concept of the "soul". Please understand that this is an imaginary concept.

You repeated that so it must be true.

There is no evidence to suggest such a thing exists.

Well there is putative evidence, whather it is "real evidence" or not is another matter, the answer which we accept depending on out reasoning processed or lack therefore.

It is, like God, faith-based.

I am not sure what you mean here. I think that the scolastics and preceding philosophers had more than blind assumptions, but sophisticated (yet non-scientific) reasoning processed when it came to the putative "soul" they have discussed. At least I dont think it was a case of "ok Ill believe in it and thats that". A little like natural theology there would have been reasoned accounts rather than mere fidelity in a vaccuum, although this is a presumption because I am not a scholar of 'rationalised' soul-discussions and cant cite examples.

One cannot make an assumption, "Souls exist" without evidence that souls do indeed exist. The concept of pink unicorns was used to try and show that, like a pink unicorn there was no evidence for either. I believe this concept went over the heads of most observers.

I know what you mean but I suppose you might be presuming empiricism, and scientific processs, as epistemologies. Like I say elsewhere these may be the safest bets but I am not sure if all else is like a pure 10000000000000 to 1 shot in the dark. For me rational process comes on a spectrum rather than a black and white division into "known facts" on the one hand and "blind fantasy" on the other. Even if soul beliefs turn out to be false, that is still a procedural difference between the person who just wildly believes on someone's say so, and someone why has in good faith adduced deductively valid or inductively cogent arguments even if they are ultimately flawed.

 

[cupid dave]

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).

The "mechanism" between body-body masses is the virtual gravitons that are always between them, as if elastic "rubber bands" were constantly pulling them together.
I suspect it is actually trhe "mechanism" of the Strong Force which is so weak at the emmense distance between the bodies.

ie, the graviton is the Strong Force.

 

[cupid dave]

I've read through this entire thread. I feel not unlike I've been bumping my head against a wall of assumptions.

First off, never accept, "Because it does" as an answer to anything.

Next, the mind/body controversy. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a "soul". I'll attempt to simplify as I don't wish to type for days. Ask yourself, do you exist in your body or your brain? You seem to see out of your body from behind your eyes. It would be easy to say you exist in your brain. I can take you through various scenarios that would make you reconsider how and where your consciousness lies. None of which have anything to do with a "soul". Because a "soul" is an imaginary construct. Neither you nor I have any idea what a "soul" is. Without evidence for the existence of a "soul" it does not come into consideration.

Bodies interact because the space between the matter that comprises them is too compact to allow other matter to pass through.

I've seen difficulty with the concept of the "soul". Please understand that this is an imaginary concept. There is no evidence to suggest such a thing exists. It is, like God, faith-based. There is no reason to suggest such a thing exists outside of religion. Words like "metaphysics" are irrelevant here. I saw the comment, "all mammals have a soul." That's... silly. There's no reason to suggest that a mammal is any different than a lizard or a bird when it comes to owning an imaginary trait.

One cannot make an assumption, "Souls exist" without evidence that souls do indeed exist. The concept of pink unicorns was used to try and show that, like a pink unicorn there was no evidence for either. I believe this concept went over the heads of most observers.

Yes, on the part about our mind or consciousness being the real "us," pearing out and recognizing that we have control of the mechanism of a body which is connected to us , our mind, by seven major senses that allow us to interact with the rest of the Reality beyond.


I disagree, in that we do know what our soul is if we understand the English word refers to our mind, or the psyke, as it is called in the Greek Bible.

 

[cupid dave]

We see no body-soul interactions and yet you're asking if we can use the same reason for why they occur?

Why WHAT occurs?

What body-soul interactions?

Point to us a soul-body interaction so that 1) We can see what this "soul" you keep talking about is and 2) We can examine the interaction and try to figure out why it occurs.

We all use our psychic energy to make the body interact with the external world, do we not?

 

[quatona]

What do you want tome to do?

I guess I am looking for an explanation why you feel that questions are still meaningful when they are lacking any context.
When you ask a question like "Why are the conditions in the universe the way they are?" I have no idea what sort of reason you are asking for.

Thats a loft odf "or"s. I suppose that one chain can of course become pointless, practically speaking.That would depend on context. IE on that I wanted to know and for what reason.

BINGO. "Why?" can mean a lot of different things, and the reasons it is searching for can be of very different nature.
Unfortunately, the person asked is left with a lot of interpretational effort in order to even find out what the person asking actually means with their question - as is demonstratable by the fact that a lot of answers given are considered unsatisfactory by the person who asked.

"Why" I suppose means "for what reason.

Yes, of course. Now, "reason" can mean a lot of things. So, my counterquestion is: What sort of reason are you asking for, and why do you even think there must be such a reason you are thinking of for an answer?

I dont see any fundamental change. Its relative and dependent on context.

Yes, exactly: The context has fundamentally changed, and the sort of reason asked for consequently has changed, as well.
The reason why I think that a question such as "Why are the conditions within the universe the way they are?" is meaningless: The "Why?" is taken out of any intelligible context.

If I want to know why there is milk on the floor I might not need an explanation of fundamental physics. On the other hand there are contexts where it would be proper.

I´d go out on a limb and say that this question isn´t even a "why?" question in 99% of the situations it is asked in. Actually, it is meant to ask "Who spilled the milk? (and I am frustrated that the person didn´t clean up the mess."

As you have shown, a (to the person asking) satisfactory answer depends on the ability of the person asked to understand the intended context (what the person actually wants to know, and what she would consider a satisfactory answer).
Neither "Sometimes someone spills milk in a kitchen." nor "Gravity." (although being accurate answers, and as opposed to the expected answer being actual reasons) will satisfy your wife.

If being clueless as to what sort of reason the person asking "Why?" is actually looking for the best way is to ask for clarification. The response "I am looking for a reason" wouldn´t help clarifying.

But either that is a reason or there is not. Can we know?

I don´t even know what "reason" is supposed to possibly mean when transcended beyond the universe.

I am not sure, I am not an expert in the field. If you are looking for some guidance, it is new territory to me.

I am not looking for guidance. I am wondering what you are actually mean when asking "Why are the conditions in the universe the way they are?". I fail to see the reason you are asking, I fail to see the context you have in mind ( "IE on that I wanted to know and for what reason.", exactly that which you have above described as necessary for understanding the meaning of a "Why?" question.)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The reason why I think that a question such as "Why are the conditions within the universe the way they are?" is meaningless: The "Why?" is taken out of any intelligible context.

Does this help:

Reason: An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence

source of definition