The Mind/ Body Problem

[Paradoxum]

What is b-flat other than a frequency of sound?

It depends what you mean by b-flat. The experience or the sound wave.

Perhaps the experience itself is not fully scientifically knowable, I am not sure I can say that for certain, I am not the authority of what science will be able to investigate in the future.

That said, an investigation that explains the how and why of subjective experience and how it arises would be enough knowledge to reduce the mind to the brain.

Ok.

Look at other explanations all you like. If you come upon one that adequately explains the phenomena I will be all ears.

Well that was going to be the point of this thread until it became apparent that people didn't understand the mind/body problem on the first place.

I think I have heard an explanation that makes alot of sense when before I had no idea what a possible explanation would look like. I don't know if there is much point in explaining it, because you seem to have alot of faith in materialism.

I don't know of any explanation for consciousness.

I know you don't.

Certainly none that would justify dualism.

I'm not talking about dualism. I'm talking about monism.

The brain is the most complicated physical structure known to man, you should probably give people some time to work on it.

Yup.

I was actually talking about letting you experience it.

If we could hook a shark brain up to your consciousness we should be able to let you experience it for yourself.

This would mean your hypothesis about subjective experience being beyond science is untrue.

How would it? Connecting brains doesn't mean it has any clue what it is doing.

I do agree that rocks and brains seem very different. Life and brains are very exotic forms of matter.

But which are all explainable in terms of atoms.

I do not agree that subjective feelings and experiences do not "do" anything. From my view they are very integrated into the physical state of our being.

What do they do then?

I don't have a mind-body problem in my philosophy, you do.

Well it is easy not to have a problem if you sweep it under the carpet. You know I assumed it could be explained materially until recently, but even then I was able to recognize the problem as a major problem.

Indeed! See you have it. Sometimes systems of things take on properties that the building blocks do not posses on their own.

I didn't say that.

The relationships of their positions and inherent physical qualities have given rise to this ability. The problem here is that positional relationships and configurations of systems do add much to the original material.

Nothing more is happening then atoms moving around according to laws.

Atoms are meaningless, life (made out of atoms) on the other hand, creates it's own purposes, identities and abstractions.

Well, it depends what you really mean by this.

Atoms are not by their nature alive. Life itself is an emergent property.

I would say life is an invented category, there is no big distinction between life and non-life objectively.

Why should I believe that consciousness is not an emergent form of matter?

You don't have to. I just assumed that consciousness would be explained by science as emergent in the future. I'm just trying to say be open minded and try to understand the problem of the difference between mind and matter. The reason you might change your mind is if you understand the difference and you hear an elegant theory that explains the world well.

 

[variant]

I would say life is an invented category, there is no big distinction between life and non-life objectively.

We don't have a problem thinking about where specific differences arise between life and non life.

It is a category with a specific well understood definition.

Consciousness doesn't have that distinction yet you wallow in the differences between rocks and minds.

Well it is easy not to have a problem if you sweep it under the carpet. You know I assumed it could be explained materially until recently, but even then I was able to recognize the problem as a major problem.

You've replaced something we have trouble investigating with something you think is impossible to investigate.

In so doing you've recreated the mind body problem with little justification.

It's not a major problem because we would need to justify your assumptions to create it.

How would it? Connecting brains doesn't mean it has any clue what it is doing.

In letting you experience what it is like to be a shark.

If brain states give rise to mind states then we should be able to give you the mind of a shark.

You merely assume that the experience of being in someone else's mind is not transferable.

Thankfully this is a falsifiable claim that we will eventually be able to investigate, circumstances allowing.

 

[Paradoxum]

We don't have a problem thinking about where specific differences arise between life and non life.

It is a category with a specific well understood definition.

Consciousness doesn't have that distinction yet you wallow in the differences between rocks and minds.

It is different. I would think that if we understood atoms but not life biology, someone who really thought about it would see that physical life doesn't do anything more than what atoms do. It is just complex movement. The big difference is consciousness.

In fact I think David Hume had a similar conception of the body to this. Descartes was similar too. The body works mechanically, but it is consciousness that creates the confusion. You may insist that we just put our faith in materialism, but I would say that consciousness if different from any other problem dealt with so far.

You've replaced something we have trouble investigating with something you think is impossible to investigate.

In so doing you've recreated the mind body problem with little justification.

It's not a major problem because we would need to justify your assumptions to create it.

The problem isn't just that we don't understand how it works. We don't know what dark matter is, that doesn't mean I think it anything other than physical.

In letting you experience what it is like to be a shark.

If brain states give rise to mind states then we should be able to give you the mind of a shark.

You merely assume that the experience of being in someone else's mind is not transferable.

Thankfully this is a falsifiable claim that we will eventually be able to investigate, circumstances allowing.

In my understanding is right then you should also be able to give people a shark experience (or at least mesh human and shark experience together.

I accept that experience might be subjectively transferable. The problem is partly that it can't be understood objectively, unlike other physical things.

 

[variant]

It is different. I would think that if we understood atoms but not life biology, someone who really thought about it would see that physical life doesn't do anything more than what atoms do. It is just complex movement. The big difference is consciousness.

This simple idea, about life being materially based was not understood for thousands of years of human history.

Life and non life are definitive categories, what made one thing live and another dead matter, the how and why of which, has only come to light recently.

I can also understand life and other forms alive objectively without literally being alive subjectively in another life form.

On a side note All categories are artificial in my opinion so calling a category "invented" doesn't really do much for me.

In fact I think David Hume had a similar conception of the body to this. Descartes was similar too. The body works mechanically, but it is consciousness that creates the confusion. You may insist that we just put our faith in materialism, but I would say that consciousness if different from any other problem dealt with so far.

Why though? Some of the ancient peoples probably would have said the body was moved by the spirit or soul as well.

You keep asserting that this problem is different somehow, insisting on it even, but this is just a base assumption.

Why is the mind a problem if you don't assume it is?

The problem isn't just that we don't understand how it works.

Yes, that is the only real problem here.

We don't yet understand how it works.

We don't know what dark matter is, that doesn't mean I think it anything other than physical.

Indeed, why make that jump if you don't have to?

In my understanding is right then you should also be able to give people a shark experience (or at least mesh human and shark experience together.

If mind states arise from brain states, it should be possible.

Which means Neagle is wrong, we can possibly know what it is like to be a bat.

I accept that experience might be subjectively transferable. The problem is partly that it can't be understood objectively, unlike other physical things.

Being able to experience the subjective makes it objective, the objective parts of it (what causes it and how) would need to be understood first before we could allow ourselves to explore other subjective states than our own.

 

[Paradoxum]

This simple idea, about life being materially based was not understood for thousands of years of human history.

I know.

Life and non life are definitive categories, what made one thing live and another dead matter, the how and why of which, has only come to light recently.

I know.

I can also understand life and other forms alive objectively without literally being alive subjectively in another life form.

I know.

On a side note All categories are artificial in my opinion so calling a category "invented" doesn't really do much for me.

Again, I know.

Why though? Some of the ancient peoples probably would have said the body was moved by the spirit or soul as well.

Some would have. They recognized the difference too, but their theories of explaining the difference weren't good enough.

You keep asserting that this problem is different somehow, insisting on it even, but this is just a base assumption.

Why is the mind a problem if you don't assume it is?

It doesn't matter.

I think the problem here is that there two different ways of understanding the world. I'm sure when science came along there were those from the old way who insisted their system would explain the world. 'Maybe Galileo can explain the movement of the planets well, but so can we, so why the need to change? Our system isn't perfect, but if we just draw a few more circles, in a bit more detail, then maybe we will understand the movement of planets and the Sun.'

They can keep the old system insisting that it will work, or notice there is a problem and that the new system explains it all in a much better way.

Yes, that is the only real problem here.

We don't yet understand how it works.

Do you know that materialism is true?

Indeed, why make that jump if you don't have to?

I wouldn't be seriously considering other options if I didn't think qualia were different in substance/ quality to all physical things.

If mind states arise from brain states, it should be possible.

I know. Connecting a human to a shark doesn't prove either of us right, though it would probably be rather trippy.

Which means Neagle is wrong, we can possibly know what it is like to be a bat.

I'm not sure Nagel discounted connecting minds by connecting brains did he?

Being able to experience the subjective makes it objective, the objective parts of it (what causes it and how) would need to be understood first before we could allow ourselves to explore other subjective states than our own.

Being able to experience the subjective doesn't make it objective. Clearly no one can test to see if I have subjective experience. It sounds like you are just assuming materialism to be true.

 

[variant]

I wouldn't be seriously considering other options if I didn't think qualia were different in substance/ quality to all physical things.

I've yet to see you explain why exactly though.

I know. Connecting a human to a shark doesn't prove either of us right, though it would probably be rather trippy.

I think it would prove that the subjective experience of the mind comes from brain states if we could give you subjective experiences from a shark.

Most of your argument falls apart there (what there is of it).

I'm not sure Nagel discounted connecting minds by connecting brains did he?

Nagel is the father of this particular kind of argument. He thought the subjective experience is what proved consciousness was different from materialism and thus he posited dualism.

I have never found it particularly convincing because I don't think objective reductionism is necessary for materialism to be true.

So, it obviously doesn't prove it false.

Being able to experience the subjective doesn't make it objective. Clearly no one can test to see if I have subjective experience. It sounds like you are just assuming materialism to be true.

Being able to explain it tells us how it works and what it is made of, and being able to experience it would make it fairly completely objective.

I think materialism is true, I don't assume it.

It's quite a bit simpler after all than going into all this exotic mental substances pervading the material world and such.

What exactly do we gain from this added complexity? Lay it out for me in detail.

I think the problem here is that there two different ways of understanding the world. I'm sure when science came along there were those from the old way who insisted their system would explain the world. 'Maybe Galileo can explain the movement of the planets well, but so can we, so why the need to change? Our system isn't perfect, but if we just draw a few more circles, in a bit more detail, then maybe we will understand the movement of planets and the Sun.'

Sciences ace in the hole is that it is remarkably useful. I am sure if you can show your system to be, remarkably useful, you can indeed win converts of people like me (we like that sort of thing).

Until then you should stop drawing analogies between you and Galileo, as it is inappropriate.

And Galileo indeed had a remarkably better explanation that required a lot less "circles" if you will, the system you would have us embrace actually has quite a few inherent problems that it introduces without the resounding explanations.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think it would prove that the subjective experience of the mind comes from brain states if we could give you subjective experiences from a shark.

Most of your argument falls apart there (what there is of it).

Of course not. If monism is true then they physical connection of brains would also mean a mental connection of minds. Either of us could be right in that case.

Nagel is the father of this particular kind of argument. He thought the subjective experience is what proved consciousness was different from materialism and thus he posited dualism.

Well perhaps he brought it up more recently, but it is hardly new.

I have never found it particularly convincing because I don't think objective reductionism is necessary for materialism to be true.

Well if you can't understand it objectively and physically then there is no reason to think it is purely physical.

Being able to explain it tells us how it works and what it is made of, and being able to experience it would make it fairly completely objective.

I have no idea what you mean by the word 'objective' here.

I think materialism is true, I don't assume it.

What do you consider to be the difference?

It's quite a bit simpler after all than going into all this exotic mental substances pervading the material world and such.

What exactly do we gain from this added complexity? Lay it out for me in detail.

Well it explain its rather than just saying, 'somehow it must be possible'. But I'm not trying to lay it out in detail because this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Sciences ace in the hole is that it is remarkably useful. I am sure if you can show your system to be, remarkably useful, you can indeed win converts of people like me (we like that sort of thing).

Well the point of this thread was to think about such things. But then people seemed to start denying that there is something weird about qualia. You can say that science will figure it out, but I find the complete denial to be strange and ideologically based.

Until then you should stop drawing analogies between you and Galileo, as it is inappropriate.

Because that is definitely what I said?

And Galileo indeed had a remarkably better explanation that required a lot less "circles" if you will, the system you would have us embrace actually has quite a few inherent problems that it introduces without the resounding explanations.

I'm not saying we should embrace anything. I don't know what the truth is on this matter. I'm just saying we should think outside the box.

But what are these problems?

 

[variant]

Of course not. If monism is true then they physical connection of brains would also mean a mental connection of minds. Either of us could be right in that case.

Then what is the difference between the world we would expect to observe if materialism is true, and the world we should expect to observe if your philosophy is true?

Well perhaps he brought it up more recently, but it is hardly new.

He is our modern dualist.

His criticism of materialism is essentially identical to yours.

Well if you can't understand it objectively and physically then there is no reason to think it is purely physical.

Why not? Why should we expect the physical to be objective?

I have no idea what you mean by the word 'objective' here.

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

Objective - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

What do you consider to be the difference?

I don't consider my opinions to be assumptions.

Well it explain its rather than just saying, 'somehow it must be possible'. But I'm not trying to lay it out in detail because this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

You have to start to go somewhere.

Well the point of this thread was to think about such things. But then people seemed to start denying that there is something weird about qualia. You can say that science will figure it out, but I find the complete denial to be strange and ideologically based.

I have no objection to saying there is something weird about qualia.

To rewrite the philosophy of science on a whim because of it seems a bit odd.

Because that is definitely what I said?

You were definitely paralleling your philosophical differences with mine to that of galileo and the church.

That is a position you have to justify.

I'm not saying we should embrace anything. I don't know what the truth is on this matter. I'm just saying we should think outside the box.

But what are these problems?

Well as I said before, materialism eliminates the mind-body problem completely.

Hence fewer problems and about the same explanatory power.

 

[Paradoxum]

Then what is the difference between the world we would expect to observe if materialism is true, and the world we should expect to observe if your philosophy is true?

I'm not sure.

He is our modern dualist.

His criticism of materialism is essentially identical to yours.

Probably true.

Why not? Why should we expect the physical to be objective?

I said there is no reason to assume something is physical in that case. It may be physical, but there is no reason to assume it.

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

Objective - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I don't think you kept to that definition, but ok.

I have no objection to saying there is something weird about qualia.

Well that's good.

To rewrite the philosophy of science on a whim because of it seems a bit odd.

It would be. I'm not suggesting that though.

You were definitely paralleling your philosophical differences with mine to that of galileo and the church.

Sort of.

Well as I said before, materialism eliminates the mind-body problem completely.

Well that is yet to be seen. I doubt it will explain it, but it might.

Hence fewer problems and about the same explanatory power.

If it is possible, that is.

 

[variant]

I'm not sure.

Then we are essentially arguing semantics.

I said there is no reason to assume something is physical in that case. It may be physical, but there is no reason to assume it.

Since you can't even seem to conceive of the difference between the two states I doubt it is important what we assume or not assume in this case.

It would be. I'm not suggesting that though.

What are you suggesting?

 

[Paradoxum]

What are you suggesting?

Kill all scientists for a glorious revolution in the teaching of Harry Potter magic of course.

 

[KCfromNC]

You think you can describe green (the qualia) to someone who hasn't seen green?

That has nothing to do with the fact you're confusing the experience of green (a mental process) with green (an attribute of a physical object).

This is only true if you assume that materialism is true.

No, it is true from your premise that one knows everything about something. It is pretty much a tautology that if one knows everything about X, then one knows a particular something about X.

If you want to introduce special pleading to say that some things are unknowable then it's not going to be a surprise that you conclude they can't be known. But that really doesn't tell us anything, any more than me asserting that it's impossible for dualism to be true.

I'm not saying subjective experience can't be known, but that it can't be known by objective physical experiment. That is an assumption there.

Yep, I agree. Any reason for me to accept that assumption as correct?

If there is no physical evidence for something then it isn't accepted as science. If we can't objectively know about experience (qualia), then it can't be scientifically accepted as existent.

And since we do have physical evidence that people experience what they describe as qualia, there's no problem here.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

The same way atoms - which themselves don't taste, smell, look like or behave like apples - can form an apple.

Good point, Taste is not a physical property, eating food is just a process, there is no physical property to the experience of taste. so physically drinking water is no different than soda taste wish as Taste has no physical property

It's difficult to conceive of, especially since our thoughts and experiences

Thoughts, experiences, ideas, information and etc cause everything. nature has no mind is just random or preset(By The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) processes

are so personal to us and we're conditioned to elevate them above the other furniture of the universe, but all the relevant data points in that direction.

Self Referentially refuting see everything you said there? according to you, all you said means nothing, as what you said doesn't physically exist, personhood, data, and information do not physically exist yet you use them to try and defend your fairy tale "naturalism".

like the guy who says, "I never tell the truth"

and Nope, it's because things like Thoughts, Math, Emotions, Color, Qualia, and Will have no physical properties, they are not material yet exist.

That's not an assumption. That's a conclusion based on hard data.

Don't troll please, no where is it proven that the mind is the brain, that is actually impossible

Not entirely. Dualism is an idea with a long and distinguished history, showing up time and again in the literature of some truly great philosophical minds. It just happens to be wrong.

Dualism is a fact, The Mind cannot be physical/material no matter how one puts it.

1, Color is not material, yet exist. Information, Complexity, Beauty, Math, etc are all Objective Realities yet aren't physical.

2, If the mind was physical then every thought, action, plan etc are all predetermined accidents, which is false. the energy signals we send to nerves are Factually directed, by what? can't be material since that would deem them without direction, just random, which is false. The Mind cannot be material

3, Thoughts aren't material, and if they were then that is Supernatural.

4,The Body dies and regenerates new cells to the point that every 7-8years we are entirely new material beings, so according to "materialism" we aren't the same being, however that is false as I am the same person I was 7-8 years ago, which proves there is an immaterial part of me.


Mind is Scientifically proven to not be material.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

That has nothing to do with the fact you're confusing the experience of green (a mental process) with green (an attribute of a physical object).

Green has no physical properties as color is immaterial. we aren't talking about how one views color but Color Objectively, Color, ALL color doesn't physically exist, even without the eyes as when blind all you see is black, black has no physical property either.

And since we do have physical evidence that people experience what they describe as qualia, there's no problem here.

Actually you don't, you don't have physical evidence of the taste of pizza other than your own, everything else is word of mouth, which isn't physical, as physically information wouldn't exist.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Kill all scientists for a glorious revolution in the teaching of Harry Potter magic of course.

Roger Penfield - “There is no place in the cerebral cortex where electrical stimulation will cause a patient…to decide"

If the mind was material we'd all be out of control.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Thoughts, experiences, ideas, information and etc cause everything. nature has no mind is just random or preset(By The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit) processes

This is a 'not even wrong' assertion.

Self Referentially refuting see everything you said there? according to you, all you said means nothing, as what you said doesn't physically exist,

I didn't say anything remotely like that.

personhood, data, and information do not physically exist

They exist in the sense that 'personhood, data and information' are all emergent properties of cognitive faculty.

To the point, nowhere in any of this is there a need to invoke anything 'immaterial'.

yet you use them to try and defend your fairy tale "naturalism".

Step 1: Come up with a workable epistemology for 'supernaturalism/immaterialism/whatever you want to call it'
Step 2: Glean some discernible information about the 'supernatural/immaterial/whatever you want to call it'

Do all this without stealing any groundwork from naturalism, which you've categorically written off.

Once you've done this, I will incorporate it into my worldview. Until then, there's nothing to address here.

Don't troll please, no where is it proven that the mind is the brain,

Who said anything about 'proven'? I said it was based on hard data (from neuroscience), which is true.

that is actually impossible

Naked assertion.

Dualism is a fact, The Mind cannot be physical/material no matter how one puts it.

Naked assertion.

1, Color is not material, yet exist. Information, Complexity, Beauty, Math, etc are all Objective Realities yet aren't physical.

This was an equivocation fallacy when it was brought up earlier in the thread. It is still an equivocation fallacy.

2, If the mind was physical then every thought, action, plan etc are all predetermined accidents, which is false. the energy signals we send to nerves are Factually directed, by what? can't be material since that would deem them without direction, just random, which is false. The Mind cannot be material

Even granting everything you've said here, all you've got is an argument from consequence fallacy.

3, Thoughts aren't material, and if they were then that is Supernatural.

Naked assertion.

4,The Body dies and regenerates new cells to the point that every 7-8years we are entirely new material beings, so according to "materialism" we aren't the same being,

Finally, an actual an argument. Too bad it's also fallacious.

If you steadily remove and replace all the parts of a car over the course of eight years, retaining at all times the same form and function of the vehicle, at the end of the process you have the same vehicle constructed of new, but identical, components.

Does this mean the car must have some 'immaterial' component to its existence to retain its identity?

No. This is a fallacy of composition - attributing to the whole some character of the parts.

Mind is Scientifically proven to not be material.

I dare you to cite me a single primary scientific source that confirms this assertion.

 

[KCfromNC]

Green has no physical properties as color is immaterial.

Strange that there are objective ways to measure this alleged immaterial property. What do you mean by immaterial in this sense?

Actually you don't, you don't have physical evidence of the taste of pizza other than your own

Other people's reaction to food is physical evidence. If you think it isn't, I'd have to assume that they're just robots programmed to react in the same manner as me, and there's no evidence of that at all.

 

[KCfromNC]

Roger Penfield - “There is no place in the cerebral cortex where electrical stimulation will cause a patient…to decide"

Nice argument by assertion, but I'll trust reality rather than a random quote on the internet. Chemical changes in the brain affects decision making processes, and the evidence shows that EM stimulation can do the same thing. For example - How electrical brain stimulation can change the way we think - The Week.

If the mind was material we'd all be out of control.

Other than the fact that reality disagrees, this is a wonderful idea.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Nice argument by assertion, but I'll trust reality rather than a random quote on the internet. Chemical changes in the brain affects decision making processes, and the evidence shows that EM stimulation can do the same thing. For example - How electrical brain stimulation can change the way we think - The Week.

And that proves what exactly? That's why it's called Dualism.

Doesn't state the brain makes decisions, it's analogous to someone punching another and causing them to physically retaliate, now did the punch cause them to decide? no it affected their decision but ultimately they decided, not the pain from the punch. or someone eating sugar, feeling physically good, and then happy affecting their decisions, they ultimately choose their decisions.

also who said physical cannot affect mental states? they can affect them, but not control them. what I'm saying is that the mind cannot be physical, sure the physical can affect the immaterial mind, but no way does it control or is the mind.

I could easily prove the reverse in mental to physical, for example shame, which causes physical stress, when shame has no physical property.

or a good example, someone tells you that they love you and feel happy which causes a physical high. they could've said they loved you screaming and you'd still get an emotional high. if we were purely physical then hearing someone tell you they love you is no different physically then saying they hate you.

the mind isn't the brain, you've been refuted.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Strange that there are objective ways to measure this alleged immaterial property. What do you mean by immaterial in this sense?

Having no physical features, not physical. Thoughts I can see, hear, taste, smell, and feel but they aren't physical, color I can see but cannot hear, taste, touch, or feel.

Other people's reaction to food is physical evidence.

Nope, that's a reaction, not the actual experience, the taste.

If you think it isn't, I'd have to assume that they're just robots programmed to react in the same manner as me, and there's no evidence of that at all.

Exactly, that's why "naturalism" is false, if it was true we'd all have the same exactly physical experiences.