Interaction ("mind body") problem

[underpressure]

The mathematical natural laws of the universe are not physical themselves, they're kind of woven into the cosmos but I don't know how you can describe it properly, you can't, the reason we know our physical universe is governed by mathematical laws is because we've observed their effects on the physical world for centuries (and the observable universe does seem to be governed by very precise mathematical laws and logic, not much doubt about that).

We know these laws exist, and any form of life or technology on this universe that can measure or observe will find the same laws (albeit perhaps in a different framework that may need conversion if we were to compare notes). We may be finding out more and more, but we don't really know precisely why these laws are there and where or what they came from or even what kind of framework they actually exist in, but these laws do exist independently of humans, but we only see their effects.

So if we observe particles, the building blocks of the universe, they certainly don't physically contain laws, they obey laws (perhaps in a non-intuitive way from our Newton understanding of the world), so it's unlikely we or science are going to find a physical bible as such for the laws of the universe, meaning we can't observe these laws directly, we can only observe their effects and interpret what these laws are. So if we agree that these laws do actually exist independently of us (even if we don't know how or why or can know the framework they exist as, we just know they are there, somewhere), and so we also agree these laws don't have a precise physical location in our observable universe but that they hold true everywhere in our observable universe, then they must be the very definition of non physical. And I think this relates to the mind and body problem, because how do these non-physical laws effect the physical universe? Well my opinion is that you're looking right at the answer, the universe and life act in the same way as your computer, the universe IS a computer or a brain.

 

[sandwiches]

No there is a mind body problem even if the mind and body are both physical. If there is not, then how does the quale of pain or pleasure cause or influance physical behavior? There is no answer to this in present understanding, so there is a problem to be solved even if the answer is expected to be physicalist.

Reducing the events to their components does NOT miss the point. It seems to me what you're doing is akin to asking us to explain how an airbag deploys when a car hits an obstacle without explaining to you how the sensors, electrical system, and chemistry behind it works.

Pain is a chemical/electrical reaction in our brains in response to stimuli from our sensor nerves which creates a signal to our muscles which contracts them, causing us to jerk or move. Nothing magical and no missing links between stimulus, sensation, and reaction.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, because there's no evidence of souls. There's lots of evidence of a natural universe.

But I have no idea how you got this from what I wrote. It wasn't an explanation of anything, just a statement that having limited understanding of the natural world doesn't mean that the supernatural is required.

MY point was that when explanations amount to "it just is that way" then it may as well be a supernatural explanation or an natural one, f either. In fact, its not much of an explanation either way, just an admission that we don't really have an explanation.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

And I'm not particularly interested in discussing it unless you can give me more than "I believe" as a reason to consider it. That leaves no room to talk about anything. Yes, I agree you believe this. And I have no reason to agree with you because I don't even really know what the objection is in the first place, other than you're not interested in believing the alternative.

I believe that pain has causal power because it has been selected to deter us from harmful actions. If it had no causal power [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] may as well be painful, because the pain would have no influence on sexual activity. See? So thats why I believe in mental causation. And also the fact that we are talking about mental states suggests that this conversatin is an effect of those mental states.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Pain is a chemical/electrical reaction in our brains in response to stimuli from our sensor nerves which creates a signal to our muscles which contracts them, causing us to jerk or move. Nothing magical and no missing links between stimulus, sensation, and reaction.

The problem I have is the same language used to describe conscious processes is used to describe non-conscious processes. Obviously the reduction does not really explain conscious processes in their difference then, else the language used to describe the conscious and the non-conscious would indicate a difference.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What about this: consciousness is irreducible.

Either it is 'reduced' to conscious processes, in which case it is not reduced, because we are simply restating the fact that there are conscious processes. i.e "consciousness is consciousness" is not a valid reduction.

Or it is reduced to non conscious processes, but that entalils a contradiction (ie it says the conscious is non-conscious).

 

[sandwiches]

Except that the same language used to describe conscious processes is used to describe non-conscious processes. Obviously the reduction does not really explain conscious processes in their difference then, else the language used to describe the conscious and the non-conscious would indicate a difference.

Two problems:
1) The language *I* use is extremely limited and simplified as neuroscience is not something I know anything about.

2) Conscious and non conscious processes both remain electrochemical processes.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The mathematical natural laws of the universe are not physical themselves, they're kind of woven into the cosmos but I don't know how you can describe it properly, you can't, the reason we know our physical universe is governed by mathematical laws is because we've observed their effects on the physical world for centuries (and the observable universe does seem to be governed by very precise mathematical laws and logic, not much doubt about that).

We know these laws exist, and any form of life or technology on this universe that can measure or observe will find the same laws (albeit perhaps in a different framework that may need conversion if we were to compare notes). We may be finding out more and more, but we don't really know precisely why these laws are there and where or what they came from or even what kind of framework they actually exist in, but these laws do exist independently of humans, but we only see their effects.

So if we observe particles, the building blocks of the universe, they certainly don't physically contain laws, they obey laws (perhaps in a non-intuitive way from our Newton understanding of the world), so it's unlikely we or science are going to find a physical bible as such for the laws of the universe, meaning we can't observe these laws directly, we can only observe their effects and interpret what these laws are. So if we agree that these laws do actually exist independently of us (even if we don't know how or why or can know the framework they exist as, we just know they are there, somewhere), and so we also agree these laws don't have a precise physical location in our observable universe but that they hold true everywhere in our observable universe, then they must be the very definition of non physical. And I think this relates to the mind and body problem, because how do these non-physical laws effect the physical universe? Well my opinion is that you're looking right at the answer, the universe and life act in the same way as your computer, the universe IS a computer or a brain.

Maybe laws are not objective, but patterns are. Laws are equations we use to describe patterns.

 

[sandwiches]

What about this: consciousness is irreducible.

Either it is 'reduced' to conscious processes, in which case it is not reduced, because we are simply restating the fact that there are conscious processes. i.e "consciousness is consciousness" is not a valid reduction.

Or it is reduced to non conscious processes, but that entalils a contradiction (ie it says the conscious is non-conscious).

It's not a contradiction. Conscious processes are fundamentally governed by the forces of nature. Much the same way that if we reduce red paint to its components, it's no longer red nor necessarily liquid. New properties emerge from particular arrangements of matter and energy. If we arrange an extremely poisonous, green gas (chlorine) and a shiny, soft metal that corrodes in air in seconds and ignites when in contact with water (sodium) in a specific manner, all of the sudden the resulting compound is a water-soluble, non-poisonous, crystalline chemical that is needed for humans to live.

 

[sandwiches]

It seems like your objection is that you can't imagine how non conscious interactions of matter and energy can result in what we call consciousness, but yet you seem to be completely fine with the trillions of other emergent properties that we interact with every day.

So, you seem to hold consciousness apart from the rest of the universe as a premise. Why?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

2) Conscious and non conscious processes both remain electrochemical processes.

But if they are both reduced to electrochemistry, as I said the reduction does not tell us the difference between the two (conscious and non-conscious). So the importatant property, i.e. consciousness, seems not to be reduced, because if it were the the reduced would be signified or indicated in the reduction (i.e. reduction statement) of conscious things and not in the reduction (i.e. reduction statemtnt) of non-conscious things.

Or, as we cannot tell the difference between the conscious and the non-conscious in the reduction statements, I suppose that we could deny non-conscious electrochemical properties because we know for sure there are conscious ones. Wouldn't that be an application of Occam's Razor (i.e. deny the non-conscious on the grounds of simplicity)!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Is the presumption that matter (like stones, water waves etc) is not conscious merely that, a presumption, or does it add explanatory power to our model of reality?

 

[sandwiches]

But if they are both reduced to electrochemistry, as I said the reduction does not tell us the difference between the two (conscious and non-conscious). So the importatant property, i.e. consciousness, seems not to be reduced, because if it were the the reduced would be signified or indicated in the reduction (i.e. reduction statement) of conscious things and not in the reduction (i.e. reduction statemtnt) of non-conscious things.

When reduced to mere electricity, can we tell the difference between a computer game and an mp3? Between an accounting program and a web browser? No.

Much the same that blue things aren't necessarily reduced to blue components or computer games are reduced to the same language as a movie in digital format, it's no necessary to be able to reduce consciousness into conscious components. Consciousness is an emergent property that doesn't appear until a specific arrangement of matter and energy is realized, much like texture, hardness, malleability, conductivity, etc.

Or, as we cannot tell the difference between the conscious and the non-conscious in the reduction statements, I suppose that we could deny non-conscious electrochemical properties because we know for sure there are conscious ones. Wouldn't that be an application of Occam's Razor (i.e. deny the non-conscious on the grounds of simplicity)!

But as we have no knowledge of conscious electrochemical signals by themselves and we have knowledge of ONLY non-conscious ones, parsimony would lead us to consciousness arising from non-conscious components. That these signals can form a consciousness is another matter entirely.

 

[variant]

No there is a mind body problem even if the mind and body are both physical. If there is not, then how does the quale of pain or pleasure cause or influance physical behavior? There is no answer to this in present understanding, so there is a problem to be solved even if the answer is expected to be physicalist.

I don't think you are articulateing a problem.

The mind is an emergent property of the body. Emergent properties don't have to be reduceable to their componets.

Emergent Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Whe

But as we have no knowledge of conscious electrochemical signals by themselves and we have knowledge of ONLY non-conscious ones, parsimony would lead us to consciousness arising from non-conscious components. That these signals can form a consciousness is another matter entirely.

No. If coneciousness is electrochemistry then the most sure knowledge we have is that electrochemistry is conscious. Saying there are non-conscious electrochemical states seems to me to be an assumption. We have introduced an new ontological category (i.e. the non-conscious) but if we accept Occams Razor we ought not do this unless the new category of entitieds actually explains something the existing ontology does not. So what does non-conscious electrochemistry add by means of theoretical power?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't think you are articulateing a problem.

The mind is an emergent property of the body. Emergent properties don't have to be reduceable to their componets.

Emergent Properties (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Stating that the mind is emergent does not explain mental causation, for example how pain causes avoidance. Nor, if pain is emergent, is it explained how this property of the system interacts with the non-mental at "lower levels" of organisation (if this needs explanation. I ask because it does not seem obvious to me). Also I would like to know in what way emergent properties (like phenomenology is apparently meant to be) are physical if they are not reducible to the language of physics or statements of physical science. I do not mean they must be non-physical either, I am just curious. Maybe terms like "pain", "worry", "thrill", "anticipation" and "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" will have to be included in the physical lexicon?

 

[variant]

Stating that the mind is emergent does not explain mental causation, for example how pain causes avoidance. Nor, if pain is emergent, is it explained how this property of the system interacts with the non-mental at "lower levels" of organisation (if this needs explanation. I ask because it does not seem obvious to me). Also I would like to know in what way emergent properties (like phenomenology is apparently meant to be) are physical if they are not reducible to the language of physics or statements of physical science. I do not mean they must be non-physical either, I am just curious. Maybe terms like "pain", "worry", "thrill", "anticipation" and "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]" will have to be included in the physical lexicon?

I am saying that there is no duality thus no need for explanation, there is a distinction to be drawn but, I don't SEE why it is a problem.

Consciousness is a physical system, pain and dread are physical things, they are caused and cause the same way as other causes cause things, the mind is an emergent system built within the body

The only thing that is interesting about this system is that it is experienced from an identity that exists because of the brain and body.

I am saying that I think, if we build a complete digital recreation of what goes on in a brain and attached it to a body that could feel and react like a human body, we would have created a consciousness. So, I am not of the opinion that systematically, mental causes are not reducible to physical causes.

And why exactly would we expect things like pain NOT to be able to cause avoidance. If it is an example of a one physical system interacting with another what is the problem with one causing another?

 

[quatona]

No. If coneciousness is electrochemistry then the most sure knowledge we have is that electrochemistry is conscious.

Fallacious reverse conclusion.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It's not a contradiction. Conscious processes are fundamentally governed by the forces of nature. Much the same way that if we reduce red paint to its components, it's no longer red nor necessarily liquid. New properties emerge from particular arrangements of matter and energy. If we arrange an extremely poisonous, green gas (chlorine) and a shiny, soft metal that corrodes in air in seconds and ignites when in contact with water (sodium) in a specific manner, all of the sudden the resulting compound is a water-soluble, non-poisonous, crystalline chemical that is needed for humans to live.

To be honest I dont know much about reduction. The only example I recall learning was the reduction of heat to mean molecular energy. But in that case the heat of the body is the MME, the heat does not "disappear" by being reduced. Rather we have a restatement of heat in more fundamental terms, not a displacement of the concept altogether.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It seems like your objection is that you can't imagine how non conscious interactions of matter and energy can result in what we call consciousness, but yet you seem to be completely fine with the trillions of other emergent properties that we interact with every day.

It is right that I do not know how they do. As for imagine, well I imagine that they could emerge by magic. Is there actually a better explanation that that?

I have no idea of the 'trillions of emergent properties' you are talking about, btw. IIRC the idea of emergence is contested in the philsophy of science. I will try and find a reference for that.

So, you seem to hold consciousness apart from the rest of the universe as a premise. Why?

I am not sure that I do, but people have taught me that most of the universe is not conscious. So I suppose it is normal to believe it (consciousness) is fairly unique in some way.