Interaction ("mind body") problem

[bentgenius]

People dismiss dualism because they do not see how a non-physical mind can interact with matter.

But how does matter interact with matter. Sure we have some theories, but if I ask "why is that the case?" when you answer, and repeat the process, I think we are ultimately going to end up with mysterious interaction. Does that mean that there is a body-body problem? Or is analogous to saying we cant explain why it rains because we can't explain where the Big Bang came from?

Also, as far as current science goes I think that it has a mind body problem too i.e. how does mental causation effect the physical? For example how does the sensation/qualia of disgust cause me to physically spit out rotten fruit from my mouth?

the answers you seek are all in the energy that flows through you . find bentgenius on facebook and you can see the picture i am sstarting to paint for the world that finally answers the questions for us all . how does it all fit together and how does life guide us and how we had our perspective about god . mutilatesd before we even knew we had a choice in what to think for ourselves.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, we have observed entities with a brain having certain characteristics, and we coined the term "conscious" from there.

So we agree its an observation not a definition. Therefore the chocolate analogy fails for reasons already stated. Proving that was the motivation behind this lengthy part of the plot.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Point being: I doubt you have any idea whatsoever what it might mean for an inanimate object to be conscious. That means that your postulate that chairs or whatever else inanimate objects might be conscious is just a play with words for obscurity´s sake.

What are you a mind reader? It might help if you read my post where I gave an outline of what it might mean for a quark to be consicous/have experience/be aware. Will redirect to the post if I can find time.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Quatona, a link to my previous post as intended.

 

[KCfromNC]

Repeat please. I am looking for a standard English language source, not some dreamed up implication somewhere in a personal Wikipedia encounter or whatever. Reputable dictionary please (which is where we find the definitions of words, you know).

What specifically is not reputable about the definition I provided earlier?

You poster a scientific definition of human consciousness (or the word conscious as applied to humans) and it did not define "consciousness" (or, if you would like "conscious") as the brain, did it?

Of course not, because (as I've said many times) the brain is not consciousness. The brain is an organ, consciousness is something the brain does. Your objection is that the stomach isn't defined as digestion therefore we can't assume the office furniture doesn't digest food.

Even if it did, it would not be a universal definition, just one from human psychology as it was a definition from human psychology. Whats the objection to this?

Seems like you're saying that even if I provide a definition that shows what you're asking for, you'll ignore it. Which makes sense, because that's exactly what you're doing in this thread.

If youre making a claim then the burden of proof is on you to come up with the defintion. I am saying I don't know of a definition, and you have to provide one. I am not saying there isn't one, but as far as I am familiar with standard reference tools there is not.

Funny how just a few days ago you were telling us we can't dismiss your ideas about chocolate conscious houses simply because of a lack of evidence. And now here you go about the burden of proof being on the person making a claim. I guess logic is kind of fluid.

Who is this "we". You and your friends?

If you stopped pretending that I never posted a definition you'd know the answer. But I guess if you repeat a lie enough some people will believe it.

No, because chocolate has a chemical definition. So it is not hasty generalisation to imply that all chocolate ought to have a certain chemical form, but rather it is a valid inference.

So every instance of chocolate we've seen has been correlated with a certain chemical compound. Just like every instance of consciousness we've seen has been correlated with certain types of brain activity. You think one is a valid inference and the other is a hasty generalization. Is it simply because someone wrote it down in a dictionary so the former has magical powers the latter doesn't? Please explain your logic here.

 

[KCfromNC]

What are you a mind reader? It might help if you read my post where I gave an outline of what it might mean for a quark to be consicous/have experience/be aware. Will redirect to the post if I can find time.

You mean something like this :

How, practically, do you account for the fact that you consider your chair potentially conscious?
​

There is no difference.

 

[KCfromNC]

So we agree its an observation not a definition.

What is a definition but consistent observations codified in writing? There's nothing magical about dictionaries - they describe word usage, not create reality a priori.

 

[KCfromNC]

I thought you were generalising from human consciousness. "

Yep, and there's more than one conscious human. Lots more. The ones with specific types of defects also have altered consciousness. Strange coincidence. Altering them using drugs also causes consciousness to behave differently. Yet another really weird coincidence.

Plus consciousness exists to a limited degree in other animals - strangely enough, seemingly correlated with brain complexity and layout.

Lots of strange coincidences here. Too bad we can't generalize from them, though, since some English major didn't write it down in the dictionary he was editing. It's the rules we have to live by, though, since everyone knows that science has to ignore reality and instead limit their conclusions to definitions in reputable dictionaries.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What specifically is not reputable about the definition I provided earlier?

It is a reputale source, but as far as I know consciousness or conscious or whatever you are trying to prove about the mind is not defined as the brain. Wheras chocolate is defined as containing cacao. So we can infer things about the chemistry of all chocolate given that definition which we cannot about the mind given a lack of a chemical definition.

Of course not, because (as I've said many times) the brain is not consciousness. The brain is an organ, consciousness is something the brain does. Your objection is that the stomach isn't defined as digestion therefore we can't assume the office furniture doesn't digest food.

I am an identity theorist. I would say that the "mind" or "awareness" or "consciousness" is the brain itself.

Seems like you're saying that even if I provide a definition that shows what you're asking for, you'll ignore it. Which makes sense, because that's exactly what you're doing in this thread.

The psychological definition you provided did not include the word "brain" did it?

Funny how just a few days ago you were telling us we can't dismiss your ideas about chocolate conscious houses simply because of a lack of evidence.

Your regular house is not made of chocolate. That is testable by looking for the presence of cacao and not finding it.

And now here you go about the burden of proof being on the person making a claim. I guess logic is kind of fluid.

My argument is that the analogy between the terms chocolate and mind is inappropriate because "chocolate" has a chemical definition but "mind" or "awareness" or "consciousness" does not. I think you are contesting that, which is why I am asking you to produce a definition that proves your case.

If you stopped pretending that I never posted a definition you'd know the answer. But I guess if you repeat a lie enough some people will believe it.

"Conscious" was not defined as the brain.

So every instance of chocolate we've seen has been correlated with a certain chemical compound.

And so it must by definition of chocolate (containing cacao).

Just like every instance of consciousness we've seen has been correlated with certain types of brain activity.

That may be true the link is not one that is true by definition, because the mind (or conscious life etc) is not defined as the brain.

You think one is a valid inference and the other is a hasty generalization.

I think that although we may only observe conscous life only in entities with brains, it is not true by definition that conscious life must be associated with brains. And yes I think thae argument all known conscious life comes from brains, therefore all conscious life comes from brains" may well be a hasty generalisation.

Is it simply because someone wrote it down in a dictionary so the former has magical powers the latter doesn't? Please explain your logic here.

My logic is that "chocolate" has a chemical definition, therefore there is a chemical test we can give if we want to know whetherto designate something as chocolate. On the other hand there is no chemical definition of the mind, conscious life etc by which we can follow the same analytic procedure.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What is a definition but consistent observations codified in writing? There's nothing magical about dictionaries - they describe word usage, not create reality a priori.

A definition is "A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry." (quoted from the free dictionary) That is an English language definition of the term "defintion" I would prefer to work with (alongside other standard definitions) precisely because it is an authorititive definition from a reputable dictionary and not one made up - and afaict by a non-expert - in a philosophy debate on the www.


Anyway to return to the point, the definition you provided does not define "conscious" as "brain". It is not part of the meaning of the word in standard English. The defintion you provided is quoted in full below for all to see:

conscious - definition of conscious by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia., the first scientific definition - 4. (Psychology) a. denoting or relating to a part of the human mind that is aware of a person's self, environment, and mental activity and that to a certain extent determines his choices of action

Therefore to say that non-brain entities could be conscious is not a violation of logical or semantic rules relating to the usage of terms.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Yep, and there's more than one conscious human. Lots more. The ones with specific types of defects also have altered consciousness. Strange coincidence. Altering them using drugs also causes consciousness to behave differently. Yet another really weird coincidence.

Plus consciousness exists to a limited degree in other animals - strangely enough, seemingly correlated with brain complexity and layout.

Lots of strange coincidences here. Too bad we can't generalize from them, though, since some English major didn't write it down in the dictionary he was editing. It's the rules we have to live by, though, since everyone knows that science has to ignore reality and instead limit their conclusions to definitions in reputable dictionaries.

No hgeneralise all you like, but do not claim there is analogy between the terms chocolate and conscious thats all. I agree that as far as we know with any degree of confidence consciousness is related only to brains. But I do not agree that we have to conclude that therefore only brains are consiocus, case closed.

I think that the generalisation may be valid, but science does not rest on generalisation alone. That is too weak to be ragarded as providing adequate proof. So as the science of mind is still in it's primitive stages, there are points where I would expect people to accept that certain theoretical areas are beyond their ken. There is nothing anti-science about that - it is in the spirit of science to sometimes admit "I don't really know".

 

[sandwiches]

The burden of proof is on you to back up the claim. The default position for me is non-belief in it, until adequate justificztion is presented. That is not a "proof" you are wrong but a proof is not possible here. We have to use rules of thumb in cases like this one. So that's what I have done.

So, lets see you roll out the rationale.

Elephants, as far as we've observed, cannot exist without oxygen, water, air pressure, etc. Agreed?

 

[sandwiches]

No hgeneralise all you like, but do not claim there is analogy between the terms chocolate and conscious thats all. I agree that as far as we know with any degree of confidence consciousness is related only to brains. But I do not agree that we have to conclude that therefore only brains are consiocus, case closed.

I think that the generalisation may be valid, but science does not rest on generalisation alone. That is too weak to be ragarded as providing adequate proof. So as the science of mind is still in it's primitive stages, there are points where I would expect people to accept that certain theoretical areas are beyond their ken. There is nothing anti-science about that - it is in the spirit of science to sometimes admit "I don't really know".

The point you keep missing, Growing, is that you seem perfectly content to make generalization on just about every observation you've made (all elephants ever observed require oxygen and water,) yet you seem incapable or unwilling, most likely, to make generalizations regarding consciousness (all consciousness ever observed has been on a living organism with a brain.)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Elephants, as far as we've observed, cannot exist without oxygen, water, air pressure, etc. Agreed?

How did I know that elephants were going to crop up somewhere? Ok, agreed.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The point you keep missing, Growing, is that you seem perfectly content to make generalization on just about every observation you've made (all elephants ever observed require oxygen and water,) yet you seem incapable or unwilling, most likely, to make generalizations regarding consciousness (all consciousness ever observed has been on a living organism with a brain.)

But with elephant we have a physical definition, as with chocolate, and we know that such animals as elephants cannot survive in certain conditions because we can study the limits of that isolated physical system. And yes we can likewise study the limits of brains, but unlike elephant and elephant properties like trunks or mamary glands, there is no definitional link to certain physical properties (i.e. brains) and mind. So wheras it would not make much sense to hypothesise a quark is an elephant, the same does not hold for mental features and quarks because there are no defined physical properties that must accrue with minds whereas there are with elephants. So the elephant analogy has the same weakness as the chocolate one.

 

[KCfromNC]

It is a reputale source, but as far as I know consciousness or conscious or whatever you are trying to prove about the mind is not defined as the brain.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, that's because no one claims it is.

I am an identity theorist. I would say that the "mind" or "awareness" or "consciousness" is the brain itself.

This makes no sense - an action isn't the same as the object which performs the action. Please provide a definition from a reputable source which indicates that playing is defined as a child, that lawmaking is defined as a politician or that acceleration is defined as a car motor or admit your assertion isn't true (by definition or otherwise).

The psychological definition you provided did not include the word "brain" did it?

No, it used a synonym. Are you going to argue that since the word choice didn't match exactly what you expected that the whole idea of brains being the source of consciousness is wrong?

Your regular house is not made of chocolate. That is testable by looking for the presence of cacao and not finding it.

A classic formulation of (your understanding of) an argument from ignorance.

My argument is that the analogy between the terms chocolate and mind is inappropriate because "chocolate" has a chemical definition but "mind" or "awareness" or "consciousness" does not.

And yet I provided a definition which shows that it's true, by definition, that consciousness is a product of the brain. But you keep trying to find ways to ignore that - first pretending that the definition doesn't mean anything, then that I didn't give it, and now that they used a slightly different phrasing than you'd hoped so it's invalid. If you're going to play the game that definitions create reality, don't start changing the rules when they create a reality that you disagree with.

And so it must by definition of chocolate (containing cacao).

Definitions don't create reality.

I think that although we may only observe conscous life only in entities with brains, it is not true by definition that conscious life must be associated with brains.

What does "true by definition" mean, specifically when contrasted with "true".

And yes I think thae argument all known conscious life comes from brains, therefore all conscious life comes from brains" may well be a hasty generalisation.

But this doesn't apply to chocolate, simply because some english major wrote something down in a dictionary? Words aren't magic.

 

[KCfromNC]

A definition is "A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry." (quoted from the free dictionary) That is an English language definition of the term "defintion" I would prefer to work with (alongside other standard definitions) precisely because it is an authorititive definition from a reputable dictionary and not one made up - and afaict by a non-expert - in a philosophy debate on the www.

If you're looking for authoritative sources on a question of biology or medicine, do you really think that a dictionary is the place to find the most accurate answer? I guess it's basically an admission that you can't argue against reality so it's time to play semantic games to try and make some sort of rhetorical point.

Anyway to return to the point, the definition you provided does not define "conscious" as "brain".

You keep pointing this out as if I haven't addressed it. It's not a problem because no one (except maybe you) thinks this. You'd be more convincing if you addressed the actual topic rather than asking people to prove stuff that they don't believe in the first place.

The definition does what you were asking - it defines consciousness as a product of the brain (it uses the synonym "mind' - defined as such in the omnipotent all-knowing truth-producing dictionary so you can't possibly question it). So now it's true by definition so we can stop worrying, right?

Therefore to say that non-brain entities could be conscious is not a violation of logical or semantic rules relating to the usage of terms.

Sure, but that doesn't make it any closer to being real than before. It's still just as much of a flight of fancy as it ever was - and still has no meaning in the context of this discussion.

 

[KCfromNC]

No hgeneralise all you like, but do not claim there is analogy between the terms chocolate and conscious thats all. I agree that as far as we know with any degree of confidence consciousness is related only to brains. But I do not agree that we have to conclude that therefore only brains are consiocus, case closed.

Of course not. No one's doing it. They're just saying that they have no reason to join you on flights of fancy about office furniture maybe being conscious as an objection to modern scientific theories about how the brain works.

 

[KCfromNC]

But with elephant we have a physical definition, as with chocolate, and we know that such animals as elephants cannot survive in certain conditions because we can study the limits of that isolated physical system.

You know, I still don't have a good understanding of why you seem to view dictionaries as some sort of holy writ which define things into reality. If I can find a reputable definition which lacks a definition of tweet as it relates to Twitter, will you conclude that the web site doesn't exist? There's no reason some non-expert's summary of common word usage should trump what we can learn about the world around us. You have it almost totally backwards - before we can define a word for something, we have to learn about it. But you'd limit what we can know to what's already written down in the dictionary. That's simply not how the world works.

 

[quatona]

I am an identity theorist. I would say that the "mind" or "awareness" or "consciousness" is the brain itself.

And why do you feel that the fact that this your definition is nowhere in the dictionary is a problem for us?
Weren´t you the guy demanding dictionary support for the definitions used?