• 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.

Interaction ("mind body") problem

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Fallacious reverse conclusion.
What I mean is that the electrochemistry we know most surely is conscious, so non-conscious electrochemisstry is an abberation. But I am not sure that most of the stuff we commonly regard as non-conscious is actually non-conscious. It seems to be a cultural assumption, but think that agnosticism (we don't know if it is conscious) is the safer bet.
 
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 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.
What do you mean by no duality? Isn't there a duality between the non-conscious (stones, tables etc) and the conscious. But why do we regard the former as non-conscious, as if it is a sure fact? Or at least a "common sense" assumption...


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
Ok if the causation of pain is the same (identical) to other forms of causation then we ought to infer that all things subject to that type of causation are sentient. i.e. allcausation is mental causation. Otherwise it seems like special pleading.


And why exactly would we expect things like pain NOT to be able to cause avoidance.
I am not saying it ought not to. But the models of causation we have in physics afaik are not mental causal models. They work without sentience, therefore sentient causation is a new form of causation, different form normal causation in some way.

Look: "

P There is NO DIFFERENCE between me responding to mental events and a stone responding to physical events.
C Therefore physical events of a stone's response are actually caused by mental evens."

That is valid.

If you disagree with the conclusion you must modify the premise such that mental and physical causation are actually held to be different to rather than identical. IOW you cannot claim that physical and mental causation are identical but that they have different properties.
 
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 liked this post by the (IIRC mathematician) user called "Chatter":

Chatter said:
Emergence isn't a model. It's an excuse not to look for a model, backed up by stock examples such as the Boyd's model of birds and Conway's Game of Life. As such, it's not really supposed to satisfy anyone, more just to reassure us that the problems of mind aren't necessarily such a big deal. Science doesn't promise answers and explanations. Ask scientists to solve a problem, and they might just come back with "too hard. Tough luck."
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
What do you mean by no duality? Isn't there a duality between the non-conscious (stones, tables etc) and the conscious. But why do we regard the former as non-conscious, as if it is a sure fact? Or at least a "common sense" assumption...

That is a distinction.

For dualism consciousness needs to be made out of an entierly differn't "stuff".

Ok if the causation of pain is the same (identical) to other forms of causation then we ought to infer that all things subject to that type of causation are sentient. i.e. allcausation is mental causation. Otherwise it seems like special pleading.

Not really.

If sentience is a feature of a certian kind of physical system, why would we assume that sentience is the primary feature of that system that relates to causation?

Why would we assume that physical systems that lack sentience cant cause?

I'm really not following your logic.

I am not saying it ought not to. But the models of causation we have in physics afaik are not mental causal models. They work without sentience, therefore sentient causation is a new form of causation, different form normal causation in some way.

If pain is a complicated set of physical things interacting then they follow the laws of physics.

Perhapse the sentience adds new properties to go with the distinct abstract self awareness of the system and perhapse not.

Still what is the problem? That just gives us physical and physical+mental causation and dosen't rule anything out.

Look: "

P There is NO DIFFERENCE between me responding to mental events and a stone responding to physical events.
C Therefore physical events of a stone's response are actually caused by mental evens."

That is valid.

Just rewrite it so that your not loopy and add a premice.

Try this:

P: There is no physical difference between how a rock and how a mind respond to the universe as per phsyics.

P2: The rock and the mind have many differn't phsycial properties.

C: There is no reason to believe that the rock and mind will not have novel features regardless of being made of the same kind of stuff.

If you disagree with the conclusion you must modify the premise such that mental and physical causation are actually held to be different to rather than identical. IOW you cannot claim that physical and mental causation are identical but that they have different properties.

They are physically differn't. ;)

So are apples and oranges, but there is no apple-orange problem.

My position is that consciousness arises out of how the system is set up and how it operates. But this dosen't lead to a dualism it leads to a distinction between differn't properties of physical systems.

Q: How does a non dualist materialist account for the differences between minds and rocks?

A: Minds and rocks have differn't physical properties.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I liked this post by the (IIRC mathematician) user called "Chatter":

Well in my field we have evolutionary biology which is an emergent system with a nice model, that produces all sorts of other emergent systems.

The mind emerging out of an emergent system of biology is not in any way supriseing to me.

So I disagree.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Ok so maybe mind is an emergent property of a physical system, I agree, but that still does not explain the "body-body" problem or how mental events like pain or pleasure cause certain behaviours. Saying "well its just another species of event" is not much of an explanation, just like saying the cause of the Big Band is "just another physical event", is not really up to much.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
You are of course entitled to that opinion - yet this still doesn´t follow in the way you pictured it.
Well answer me this: do you believe that the majority of visible matter (not dark matter) is non-conscious?
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟553,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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?

That's a category error, since magic isn't an explanation at all.

I have no idea of the 'trillions of emergent properties' you are talking about, btw.

When do a few grains of sand turn into a pile?

IIRC the idea of emergence is contested in the philsophy of science. I will try and find a reference for that.

Who cares? This is a problem for scientists, not science groupies.

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.

Yeah, it appears that our conscious mind does a good job of self-promotion, even to the point of taking credit for things which is doesn't do. For example, avoiding pain.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
30,256
17,181
✟553,130.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Ok so maybe mind is an emergent property of a physical system, I agree, but that still does not explain the "body-body" problem or how mental events like pain or pleasure cause certain behaviours.

I was under the impression that many responses to pain were reflex - they didn't even make it back to the mind before being reacted to. So there's not even a question to be answered here, much less a problem caused by a lack of an answer.

Anyway, what kind of response here would be sufficient to you? You seem kind of hung up on the idea that any sort of science-based explanation is "reductionism" and missing something vital. So I imagine we'll go through a lot of working pointing out references to you only to go back to "but this doesn't explain what I feel, it's only chemistry".
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
Well answer me this: do you believe that the majority of visible matter (not dark matter) is non-conscious?
First let´s stay with the question whether your conclusion was a valid one (the question at hand).
Next we can have a chat about my opinions on other issues, ok?
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, it appears that our conscious mind does a good job of self-promotion, even to the point of taking credit for things which is doesn't do. For example, avoiding pain.
But not all pain responses are unconsicous or reflex. Also I mentioned pleasue. Do you think that emotion has no influence on behaviour, and it is a mere coincidence that harmful things tend to be painful etc? Personally I think the best explanation for this is that pain and pleasere influence behaviour and that genetics plays a role.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
First let´s stay with the question whether your conclusion was a valid one (the question at hand).
Next we can have a chat about my opinions on other issues, ok?
can you direct me to the post you have in mind please?
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I was under the impression that many responses to pain were reflex - they didn't even make it back to the mind before being reacted to.
Some but not all "pain responses" (see #56) are automatic/reflex, but some are conscious afaik.

So there's not even a question to be answered here, much less a problem caused by a lack of an answer.
No, because (if I am correct) not all pain responced are reflex, leaving space for causal role of pain qualia/sensations.


Anyway, what kind of response here would be sufficient to you? You seem kind of hung up on the idea that any sort of science-based explanation is "reductionism" and missing something vital. So I imagine we'll go through a lot of working pointing out references to you only to go back to "but this doesn't explain what I feel, it's only chemistry".
No it is you who is expected to say it is only chemistry. But if it is "only chemistry", it seems a little arbitrary to assume that the vast majority of chemical reactions are non-conscious and that we are somehow extra special, when there seems to be little warrant for that assertion if we are arguing from analogy. Other chemical reactions share many properties with ones in the brain, so we ought not dogmatically claim they are not conscious. I think that an agnostic stance is more reasonable (i.e we don't know if non-brain reactions are conscious in some way or not). At least if we are making a positive claim either way, we ought to acknowledge that claim is made with little confidence. Agreed?
 
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 am not even sure if there is such a thing as unconscious pain, as pain may have to be painful (i.e. have an qualitative experiential impact) in order for it to be "pain". Maybe what are regarded as pain reflexes are better called avoidance reflexes.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Ok so maybe mind is an emergent property of a physical system, I agree, but that still does not explain the "body-body" problem or how mental events like pain or pleasure cause certain behaviours. Saying "well its just another species of event" is not much of an explanation, just like saying the cause of the Big Band is "just another physical event", is not really up to much.

"It's another species of physical events" does solve the mind-body problem though, and that is what you asked. People don't take dualism seriously because it is a made up "problem" from most perspectives because we don't have a reason to think it is a problem.

Nothing solves the body-body problem fully, the only way to even address it is empirical investigation which is inexaustable.

Your complaint is not unique, it stemms from, as I said earlier, not being satisfied with incomplete answers.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
can you direct me to the post you have in mind please?
Sure (although you´d just have to trace back the quotes in our conversation - just like I do now for you):
I quoted your initial claim from post #35 in my post #38 and criticized it as a reverse conclusion.
You attempted to modify your claim in post #41, but it was essentially the same problem (as I pointed out in post #44 ).
Then, instead of addressing the issue, you asked me a personal question.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
Well answer me this: do you believe that the majority of visible matter (not dark matter) is non-conscious?
I´m not an expert in this field - but since you just asked me for my beliefs:
I don´t believe that the distinction "conscious vs. non-conscious matter" is accurate or meaningful. Rather, I think that certain systems (composed of various forms of matter) can under certain conditions be(come) conscious. I believe that consciousness is an event rather than an object or a property.
 
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
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?

Show me a single conscious electrochemical process, not one that is part of the process of consciousness (NOT THE SAME THING.)

If you have a problem with this request, then I would suggest defining "consciousness."
 
Upvote 0