Mind/matter duality

[bennyboy]

I'm not asserting anything except that if the brain is a purely physical mechanism, it should be able to perform all its functions without [subjectivity].

You just made the assertion. Now please provide some evidence.

My evidence is that physics is an objective system of explanation, and must therefore depend only on what is actually observable. Brain function IS observable by others-- subjective experience ISN'T.

Don't believe me? If you are in fact sentient, prove it. Take any lab experiment in which brain function is linked to consciousness and prove that the person whose brain it is is actually experiencing, rather than just saying they are.

It's great to take the philosophical position that other minds than mine exist, but this is not a scientific conclusion-- it's an exercise in pragmatic philosophy. And when you are required to make a philosophical assumption to do science, you don't get to use science to validate that assumption-- circles are circles, no matter who's running in them.

[Cato]

The short answer is I don't know. I don't like the word supernatural, though.

The particular speculation that I gravitate to is the one that I just said-- I think it's more likely that mind of some kind is intrinsic to the physics of the universe, rather than miraculously spawning due to the arrangement of particular organic structures on a little blue dot in an inconsequential solar system in one of a gazillion galaxies. THAT is an assumption that I find hard to swallow.

I'm interested in understanding why you gravitate towards mind being an emergent property of universal physics rather than being an emergent property of the brain; particularly, since the only example of mind, as we are discussing it, is located in only one species on our mundane little speck of dust. Without some argument, your position seems more incredible.

It may be that consciousness IS complex information processing, and is not dependent on any particular physical structure (i.e. the brain).

What information does a mind have to process without the brain? You are now faced with concocting some method of communication between the brain and the mind.

[bennyboy]

I'm interested in understanding why you gravitate towards mind being an emergent property of universal physics rather than being an emergent property of the brain; particularly, since the only example of mind, as we are discussing it, is located in only one species on our mundane little speck of dust. Without some argument, your position seems more incredible.

A sleeping brain (at least in some states of sleep), or one in a coma, is not conscious. Therefore it is the processing of information which seems intrinscially linked to awareness.

The $64,000 question is whether ANY physical structure which can do massively parallel processing in the same (or similar) way will necessarily be conscious, or whether ONLY the organic system of the brain found in animals on Earth can achieve this. Generally, it's good not to speculate on things that aren't known to exist. However, the idea that life has ONLY existed on Earth, and that the mind has ONLY evolved on this little speck of dust, reaches Biblical proportions in its anthropocentrism.

I just don't think we're that important. I think the existence of my mind says that minds can exist in the universe. And if the universe can have minds, it is likely to have many more than just us. To think otherwise is almost to believe in magic, IMO.

[Cato]

A sleeping brain (at least in some states of sleep), or one in a coma, is not conscious. Therefore it is the processing of information which seems intrinscially linked to awareness.

The $64,000 question is whether ANY physical structure which can do massively parallel processing in the same (or similar) way will necessarily be conscious, or whether ONLY the organic system of the brain found in animals on Earth can achieve this. Generally, it's good not to speculate on things that aren't known to exist. However, the idea that life has ONLY existed on Earth, and that the mind has ONLY evolved on this little speck of dust, reaches Biblical proportions in its anthropocentrism.

I just don't think we're that important. I think the existence of my mind says that minds can exist in the universe. And if the universe can have minds, it is likely to have many more than just us. To think otherwise is almost to believe in magic, IMO.

I did not claim that we are the ONLY minds in the universe. I stated that we have the only examples yet known. Huge difference. I would also like to think that there are other minds in the universe, but based on current evidence and knowledge, I assume that they too are the product of something we could easily describe as a brain located in something we would describe as a lifeform (particular chemistry, fit, form and function be damned).

Our disagreement is that you suggest that minds are somehow ontologically distinct entities from the brains they haunt.

[Whateverist]

The mind is the product if the brain. Without the brain, the mind does not exist. Therefore, consciousness is tied to the brain and is a result of the physical processes thereof.

To apply special meaning or "supernatural" significance to it is akin to a spiritual argument that requires something more than a simple assertion to give it any true weight.

Well you have to admit that what we mean by "mind" is pretty different than most "things" we give names to, including "brains". Nothing supernatural intended mind you, but still different enough in kind from what we mean by brains as to be worthy of interest.

Maybe it has something to do with being self-referential. When I use refer to "me" or "my" I never intend my brain, but rather my mind. Likewise if I get a tumor, I'd never describe it as being in my mind, it would be in my brain.

[Angrboda]

I'm not asserting anything except that if the brain is a purely physical mechanism, it should be able to perform all its functions without [subjectivity].

You just made the assertion. Now please provide some evidence.

My evidence is that physics is an objective system of explanation, and must therefore depend only on what is actually observable. Brain function IS observable by others-- subjective experience ISN'T.

I don't know why you think this is evidence for your assertion. Nor do I particularly care. Wolfgang Pauli comes to mind for some reason. I'm done here.

Enjoy your discussion.

[little_monkey]

My evidence is that physics is an objective system of explanation, and must therefore depend only on what is actually observable. Brain function IS observable by others-- subjective experience ISN'T

Don't believe me? If you are in fact sentient, prove it. Take any lab experiment in which brain function is linked to consciousness and prove that the person whose brain it is is actually experiencing, rather than just saying they are..

For example, let's say you ask someone to move a limb. The outside observer can indicate brain activity associated with decision-making and movement, nerve and muscle activity, etc., resulting in the moving limb. The subjective observer indicates experiencing a decision, and the sensations of movement – although how exactly the decision takes place is not observable to them.

The subject of intentionality is no different. The outside observer can identify brain activity associated with intentionality. The insider has the subjective experience of intentionality but is not aware of the subconscious brain activity that gives rise to that process. It doesn't follow that the emergence of intentional state or acting upon intentional thoughts directly arise from that subjective state, and at no point is it necessary to conjecture the existence of some sort non-physical stuff.

It's great to take the philosophical position that other minds than mine exist, but this is not a scientific conclusion-- it's an exercise in pragmatic philosophy. And when you are required to make a philosophical assumption to do science, you don't get to use science to validate that assumption-- circles are circles, no matter who's running in them.

It would be difficult to maintain the theory that we are brains in vats when 7 billion people can describe a falling body, well, as a falling body. You would have to postulate a computer larger than the galaxy to maintain for each of those 7 billion people the same illusion for each second, 24/7 for the rest of human existence. A simpler hypothesis is that we are individual perceiving a common reality - falling bodies, cars crashing, etc. It is on the interpretation of what we perceive that we will disagree -- why is that body falling, who made the car to crash, etc.

[bennyboy]

re: medical experiment
That's all perfectly true. In reality, we make the necessary pragmatic assumption that when a person-looking object says "I smell smoke," there's an actual mind having the experience of smelling smoke. And yet, you cannot interact directly with someone else's mind-- you are forced to go through intermediary steps-- either communicating with them verbally to get a report of what they're experiencing, or messing with their brain to change what that mind is experiencing. At no point in this process is it ever provable that there even IS a mind there.

It's a strange situation. Everyone (I'm willing to believe) knows about mind, and knows that mind exists. And yet while you can locate brain functions, you cannot locate (for example) a dream unicorn and give him an apple. In a sense, it's like each mind IS a Matrix environment of its own.

re: minds in vats
This is a good point. I'd argue that shared experience is (by definition more than proof) our reality as human beings. But that doesn't prove it's THE reality-- i.e. that we're not BIJ, or in the Matrix, or the mind of God, or whatever.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...it is the result (or by product, if you will) of our evolutionarily developed brain. It serves a biological purpose. It helps us survive and thrive.

This idea has no scientific merit. You're telling a just-so story.

[The Grand Nudger]

What part of that do you fee lacks "scientific merit". Hang your hat on something for me Chad.
(why that would matter, coming from a magic junkie...is another discussion entirely).