Mind/matter duality

[little_monkey]

Godd luck with that.

I take it you now realize how dumb it sounds to support your belief with a test like putting an ax to your head.

Thought experiments, also known by their German name "Gedanken", are perhaps new to you, but they've been around since the ancient Greeks, and perhaps even earlier.

[bennyboy]

The fact that if someone puts an axe through your brain, and that your mind won't be functioning very well after proves in every way that there is a deep connection between the two. We're just beginning to explore scientifically that deep connection. The MRI was only invented 20 years ago, and was used primarily for medical purposes. Actual research has been scant. But the remarkable thing is that this used to be the domain of philosophy, the mind/matter thing. It isn't anymore.

Okay, this is the conversation to be had, I think. I agree that brain and mind seem to be strongly connected. However, brain function viewed from the outside is not the same as experience. One is the interchange of massive numbers of electrons, photons, NTs, etc., viewable under fMRI and other devices; the other is a subjective space full of feeling, color, and symbolism, and cannot be directly manipulated, or even proven to exist. You will argue (without being able to totally prove it. . . "yet") that every experience is just one's awareness of some part of brain function: that they are one and the same. But how, other than a plausible consensus with other people (who from your perspective are really just more experiences), would you go about providing proof of this?

You'd have to either prove or assume all of the following: 1) the things you perceive represent an objective reality; 2) the people you communicate with are not only real, but are really sentient beings like you; 3) you and the other people (now assumed real) consulting with each other on issues of mind do not have some common trait (for example, a genetic predisposition to be unaware of certain kinds of information) which makes it physically impossible for you to know the "truth"; 4) the fact that all ideas about an objective physical world are derived from subjective experiences-- perception of light, sound, etc.-- doesn't lead to a nasty circularity; for example, you aren't in the Matrix, where all available perceptions point falsely to the existence of the brain, rather than the Matrix, as the source of all your experiences.

The problem is that since these are the questions we're trying to investigate, we are not allowed to assume any of them, or else we are begging the question. So how are we to go about proving them?

[pocaracas]

Brain injury causes personality changes.... It's documented... I wonder why, after 5 pages, no one has mentioned this?....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/12317.html
http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site...985P1.html

enjoy

[little_monkey]

The fact that if someone puts an axe through your brain, and that your mind won't be functioning very well after proves in every way that there is a deep connection between the two. We're just beginning to explore scientifically that deep connection. The MRI was only invented 20 years ago, and was used primarily for medical purposes. Actual research has been scant. But the remarkable thing is that this used to be the domain of philosophy, the mind/matter thing. It isn't anymore.

Okay, this is the conversation to be had, I think. I agree that brain and mind seem to be strongly connected. However, brain function viewed from the outside is not the same as experience. One is the interchange of massive numbers of electrons, photons, NTs, etc., viewable under fMRI and other devices; the other is a subjective space full of feeling, color, and symbolism, and cannot be directly manipulated, or even proven to exist.

Sorry for breaking up your long paragraph here, but that we don't know yet. In the future we might know exactly what configurations in your brain corresponds exactly to you seeing the color red, or to the feeling of being satiated after eating a good meal. In fact I see a future when a surgeon will implant a signal and you won't have any other choice but to think you see red or your feeling of being satiated after eating a good meal. And that might very well happen in our lifetime.

You will argue (without being able to totally prove it. . . "yet") that every experience is just one's awareness of some part of brain function: that they are one and the same. But how, other than a plausible consensus with other people (who from your perspective are really just more experiences), would you go about providing proof of this?

See above answer.

You'd have to either prove or assume all of the following:
1) the things you perceive represent an objective reality;

The things in themselves are real-- trees, cats, the clouds in the sky. However, your perception of those can be distorted -- I give you loads of alcohol or grass. Assuming a sound and healthy brain, then the apparatus doing the perception ( brains + senses) is objective.

2) the people you communicate with are not only real, but are really sentient beings like you;

Same answer as in 1.

3) you and the other people (now assumed real) consulting with each other on issues of mind do not have some common trait (for example, a genetic predisposition to be unaware of certain kinds of information) which makes it physically impossible for you to know the "truth";

We're not in the business of finding truth values to a statement. Our main goal is to accurately describe the reality in front of us. Some people are blind color. I know one fellow who can't distinguish different shades of red. But we also know that this is connected to a gene which he inherited from his grand-father. So to him, he sees a different reality than we do, but guess what, we know about it.

4) the fact that all ideas about an objective physical world are derived from subjective experiences-- perception of light, sound, etc.-- doesn't lead to a nasty circularity; for example, you aren't in the Matrix, where all available perceptions point falsely to the existence of the brain, rather than the Matrix, as the source of all your experiences.

I'm not sure what is your point here. Perhaps some clarification would help.

The problem is that since these are the questions we're trying to investigate, we are not allowed to assume any of them, or else we are begging the question. So how are we to go about proving them?

Ha, invoking Godel's theorem won't help you. You show know by now I'm fairly steep in my knowledge of physics and math.

[bennyboy]

Ha, invoking Godel's theorem won't help you. You show know by now I'm fairly steep in my knowledge of physics and math.

Wait a sec. . . I think I've just figured out which "Joe" you are.

[little_monkey]

Ha, invoking Godel's theorem won't help you. You show know by now I'm fairly steep in my knowledge of physics and math.

Wait a sec. . . I think I've just figured out which "Joe" you are.

Bingo.

BTW, check out my latest blog. http://soi.blogspot.ca/


NOTE: to everyone, no ads on that site, not trying to get more clicks.

[whatever76]

My answer would be because it is to our advantage to have subjective awareness in a world composed of physical interactions. The advantage that it gives us is the ability to adapt the environment to meet our biological imperatives.

Having data collected together, storing patterns in the brain to assist with later processing, having parallel modules working together, and having parts of that system mediated by some behaviors that are hard-coded in the DNA, are all useful. These are the things the brain can be observed to be doing in response to the environment.

Nobody yet has explained why there has to be a sentient entity who is experiencing all these processes in the way that I do, and that presumably all animals do to varying degrees.

In short, I totally agree with you. But as nice a story as it is, it's missing two important parts: the ability to prove it objectively, and a good explanation why experience > pure mechanical function. (by which I only mean brain function that doesn't involve conscious awareness)

So I think what you are saying is, if the world is just purely a mechanical process, then the entities in that world would be purely mechanical. Since you are a conscious being there is a break down in the equivalency (or reduction) between mechanical universe and the your existence as a self-aware being. I'm just making sure I understand what you are saying.

Let's back up to the solipsist argument. We are all solipsists by default. I cannot leave my own mind and stand outside of it to perceive what the world actually is, I only know the world as constructed by my senses and the derivative assumptions from the data that my senses provide. Due to that limitation, it is possible that I am dreaming or that I am hooked up to a machine that is stimulating my brain to produce the world that I sense or that I am pure consciousness and the world exists is entirely within me. Despite these possibilities, my unquestioned assumption would be that there is an objective world "out there" and an subjective world "in here".

This problem cannot be resolved. I cannot know for certain that there is really an objective world, mechanical or otherwise. Philosophy and science proceed from the assumption that there is. Their explanations stand or fall on that assumption and there is always the question of whether they are right or not. The scientific theories of an unconscious universe that evolved conscious being sounds counter-intuitive for that reason.

The one caveat is that our very lack of certainty is what gives rise to a scientific explanation being more probable than a metaphysical one. If you proceed from the notion that you cannot be certain of anything, than you arrive at a methodology that is scientific.

I'm trying to answer what I think is the essence of your inquiry. In answer to your direct questions:

Our ability to improve our survival by changing the environment is easily proven objectively (the reason I suggested for why we are self-aware) and our world is non-linear, therefore an entity that relies upon linear mechanical processes would be at a disadvantage.

Looking specifically at what we call subjective awareness, it is a feedback loop that uses language (including all sensory symbols) to adjust my organism to conditions. Language is a means of gauging my social acceptance and rank with other humans, which is indirectly tied to my imperatives to survive and reproduce. This can be proven by directly optimizing my actual ability to survive/reproduce because my internal feedback (self-talk) will change automatically.

[Neo-Scholastic]

…brain function viewed from the outside is not the same as experience…1) the things you perceive represent an objective reality

First, objective reality is not the same thing as physical reality. What you call objective is a common reference for all subjective experiences. Macbeth is a fictional character. He can serve as a common reference point and we can have knowledge and make true statements about Macbeth. But Macbeth is non-physical even if he is still a part of objective reality.

Secondly, you cannot have knowledge apart from a subject that knows. Every observation includes both your own sense data about objective reality and information about you as a subject. Thus, you cannot truly divide the world into objective knowledge (that is somehow real) and subjective knowledge (that is suspect and unreal). One entails the other.

Finally, doubt is the just the unwillingness to commit to the veracity of some idea. So no matter how compelling the evidence, or complete your knowledge, you can always doubt. Doubting is a choice and not always a rational one. It is possible that you could be a brain in a vat or a butterfly dreaming he is a man or the only truly sentient being in a world of zombies. These kinds of doubts are not falsifiable. This makes them unscientific. Trying to gain knowledge of experience itself without reference to experience is a fool’s errand.

---

...Our ability to improve our survival by changing the environment is easily proven objectively (the reason I suggested for why we are self-aware) and our world is non-linear, therefore an entity that relies upon linear mechanical processes would be at a disadvantage.

Evolution did it! You really haven't proven anything. You begged the question. Most of the very human things you do, you often do without conscious awareness. You drive your car while thinking about something else. Your unconscious mind works on problems while you sleep. You can daydream in the shower. And sometime you can even have a complete conversation while your mind is somewhere else. If we can do these very human things without consciousness then what makes consciousness an evolutionary advantage.

[bennyboy]

Wait a sec. . . I think I've just figured out which "Joe" you are.

Bingo.

BTW, check out my latest blog. http://soi.blogspot.ca/


NOTE: to everyone, no ads on that site, not trying to get more clicks.

Added to favorites. Looks good!

[little_monkey]

Bingo.

BTW, check out my latest blog. http://soi.blogspot.ca/


NOTE: to everyone, no ads on that site, not trying to get more clicks.

Added to favorites. Looks good!

My next one is on how Einstein derived E=mc^2. Stay tuned.