Mindfulness or Mindlessness?

[Peebothuhlu]

*Waves*

Hope you'r doing great DLJ

Sorry to just be posting something so random.

Not at work.

Watcha Peebs and g'day!

Random's good.  

Doing OK.  Still stuck in Straya.  Remotely celebrated my dad's 99th birthday a couple of days ago.  Otherwise, it's all quiet (too quiet).

How's it going down there in mouse-plague, pandemic-central?

Well... filled out my 'Travel Pass' today so if I get pulled over by the Police I've got my papers all in order and wont (Shouldn't) get fined for being "Out side my zone".  :/

No real sign of mice. The feral cats, foxes, kookburras, magpies, hawks, funnel webs etc must be eating them all before they get this far into the suburbs.

 

Not at work.

[Silver]

Outside your zone: what is this, life as a sci-fi film?

[Neo-Scholastic]

1) There is a causal relation between brain states and conscious states. Every thought exists because of a brain state. Period.

I think we can all agree with 1. The problem is we have no idea how the brain creates or is involved in conscious states otherwise. We only understand that there is a direct causal relation. It's kinda like if you showed an ancient person how a lamp works. They will quickly see the causal relation between turning on the light and hitting the switch, but they'd have no idea HOW the one caused the other.

We're in a similar position with consciousness.

Actually, and unsurprisingly, I disagree. To quote the title of the famous paper, I don't think you are "Giving Dualism Its Due."

I say, some brain states may accidentally serve as signs of conscious phenomena but there is no known essential cause that requires conscious states to be contingent brain states.

[vulcanlogician]

To quote the title of the famous paper, I don't think you are "Giving Dualism Its Due."

You got a link? Google gave me multiple items. Not sure which is the "famous paper." I'd like to read it... sounds interesting.

I've always said that property dualism isn't that bad. It's a decent bare-bones assessment of things. That being said, there are plenty of reasons to consider physicalism of some kind more plausible. Brain states are heavily involved in conscious states. If someone postulates conscious states that aren't causally dependant on brain states, I want to ask for proof of that.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To quote the title of the famous paper, I don't think you are "Giving Dualism Its Due."

You got a link? Google gave me multiple items. Not sure which is the "famous paper." I'd like to read it... sounds interesting.

I've always said that property dualism isn't that bad. It's a decent bare-bones assessment of things. That being said, there are plenty of reasons to consider physicalism of some kind more plausible. Brain states are heavily involved in conscious states. If someone postulates conscious states that aren't causally dependant on brain states, I want to ask for proof of that.

SUMMARY REVIEW


FULL TEXT

<Should probably give it another read myself.>

Don't want to get into some kind of "burden of proof" discussion here because I agree. If there was some reliable indication of a conscious state unrelated to a brain state, I also would like proof. But the way I see it, the intuitive appeal of dualism hasn't been as firmly swept away by physical reduction as the materialists claim...which is the point of the paper.

[Jehanne]

The above paper was written by a materialist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The above paper was written by a materialist.

Yes, that is correct. He presents himself as a materialist who is particularly incredulous toward dualism. Despite this (or because of it) he has taken it upon himself to steelman Cartesian substance dualism. In so doing, he claims to have discovered that 1) arguments if favor of materialism are lacking and 2) the most prominent objections to substance dualism are rather thin. He is most explicitly not advocating dualism...just giving it fair consideration.

Similarly, I did not post the link to the paper in order to promote dualism; but rather, to suggest a lack of warrant for making definitive materialist statements such as brain states just are mental phenomena....in particular @vulcanlogic 's "Period."

[vulcanlogician]

The above paper was written by a materialist.

Yes, that is correct. He presents himself as a materialist who is particularly incredulous toward dualism. Despite this (or because of it) he has taken it upon himself to steelman Cartesian substance dualism. In so doing, he claims to have discovered that 1) arguments if favor of materialism are lacking and 2) the most prominent objections to substance dualism are rather thin. He is most explicitly not advocating dualism...just giving it fair consideration.

Similarly, I did not post the link to the paper in order to promote dualism; but rather, to suggest a lack of warrant for making definitive materialist statements such as brain states just are mental phenomena....in particular @vulcanlogic 's "Period."

I'm almost finished with the paper. It's very good. I'd love to discuss it, especially the syllogism presented about halfway through.

I do want to clarify my position: "mental states are causally determined by brain states."

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yeah, one of the main virtues IMHO of "Giving Dualism Its Due" , was his fair handling of the interaction problem.

He also makes a great deal about spacially locating mind in the head as a necessary condition for overcoming certain materialist objection. I am not so ready to give up the idea that mental objects, like numbers, have no spacial extention.

[DLJ]

...

FULL TEXT

...
the intuitive appeal of dualism hasn't been as firmly swept away by physical reduction as the materialists claim...which is the point of the paper.

Thanks for that. A good read.

I trip up on some of the jargon (being quite new to this philosophy thing) so I doubt I fully understood it, but I got through it.

I have a good explanation for this bit on the last page:
"But then what explains the unique relation between the mind and that body? This is indeed an embarrassing question, but the answer is to be found in whatever would explain the appearance of minds in the evolutionary process."
So that made me happy.

Has anyone made an attempt to unify dualism, physicalism and epiphenomenalism, externalism etc.?