Mind/matter duality

[little_monkey]

I was just answering apophenia who was aking a specific question on QM.

I don't mind at all. The bits of pop physics that I've read about entanglement, indeterminacy, the nature of light, etc. has a lot to do with my views. I suspect that everywhere we look from now on, we're going to end up in a maze of dead ends, ambiguities and apparent dualities that are unresolvable. But I kind of wonder as we collect enough of these if a kind of super-pattern might emerge out of them-- a kind of science of the unknowable.

If you are really interested in those things, my best suggestion is for you to study that stuff. It's only when you work with formulas and doing the actual calculations that you get a sense of what these concepts mean. That's what I do on my blog. For instance the Einstein's Derivation of the Famous Equation, E=mc2 , I've shown how Einstein derived his conclusions from the calculations of the energy from two observers: one at rest, the other in motion. That they would calculate different values, and since energy is conserved, the only way to reconcile these two values is to conclude e = mc^2. The idea of looking from two different POV's - one at rest, the other moving - was just brilliant. Who would have thought!? No one, except Einstein. And then he knew for the first time that one could actually convert matter into energy and vice-versa, no one had ever thought this could really be done, except in science fiction.

[whatever76]

You can't have an idea or a mind without a physical organism.

This is a common assumption. It's a very sensible assumption. But you can't use this particular assumption to make the claim you're making, because it begs the question.

If I were saying that because there is no idea or mind without a body, then there is no mind, I would agree that I am begging the question. But I'm not. I'm saying that since there is no idea/mind without a body, then idea/mind becomes an increasingly unnecessary entity to explain experience. Which leads me to the conclusion that there is no mind, only body.

Whether it is a common or sensible assumption that a mind cannot exist without a body is inconsequential. It is a well-proven assumption. Feel free to offer proof to the contrary.

How do you go about collecting information about the universe, including the structure of brains, including the experience of doing scientific experiments, etc? You think, you experience, and you interact with your sense perceptions-- and all these are mental experiences by definition.

If I were a dog or a geranium, I would go about collecting information about the universe in a very different way than I do as a human. I can say that me, the dog and the geranium all have a mind, which is somehow a separate entity doing the experiencing, but why bother? Empirically, it is the organism that is "doing" the experience.

This pretty much answers your original question. If we are mind, why do I only experience through this particular body and not every organism simultaneously or through the form that I want to perceive through at any given moment? Why am I essentially "tied" to this particular vantage point? Quite simply, it is because my organism is generating the experience in the first place.

This is why I've said I think the universe always comes down to ambiguity which is resolved not by proof or rationale, but by selecting a perspective.

The universe isn't ambiguous, IMO, we are. Any perception is produced by the limitations of sense data which results in uncertainty. How do you go about selecting a perspective? How are you aware of the variety of the perspectives to choose from?

I will say mind precedes all. I'll show that all learning, including the experience of doing science in a lab, is exactly that-- experience. It is provable only to be mental in nature. I'll demand that mind must be accepted as brute fact, since I know for sure that I see red, feel love, and enjoy Beethoven's 5th, but I cannot prove that these are not piped in from the Matrix, or created by my brain in a jar, or symbolic representations of the mind of God. I'll argue that whatever (ultimately unknowable) reality may lie behind the mind isn't even that important-- it is the consistency of our experiences, i.e. our mental function, which allows us to build ideas and act meaningfully. So if we're in the Matrix, no matter-- it is what it is, we are what we are, and that is the context in which we live our lives.

You will say that all is physics, that we know that the brain creates the mind, and that all our apparent mental experiences are really just manifestations of complex data processing in a physical system, the brain. You may even argue that the mind is an illusion, and that it doesn't "exist" in any meaningful way, because all ideas and experiences it "has" can theoretically be mapped directly to the brain functions which they represent, making the idea of mind redundant and therefore worth discarding.

To this, I would respond that the universe we know about is not directly manipulable in the way that physical monism is usually thought of. When the building blocks of a "solid" reality come down to statistical functions, which are clearly conceptual in nature, then you have to ask yourself what this physicalism which you are holding to even means anymore.

The meaning is relative to what I am. My thinking is simply functional, not absolute. A bowling ball may be made mostly of space or may only be part of a hologram that is the universe, but if I drop it on my foot it's "physicality" is what is apparent-- i.e. what is real--to me. It doesn't even matter if the pain is only sensed in my brain and not my foot. I don't particularly give a shit during the phenomena of dropping the ball on my foot.

I find it interesting that we speculate like we do about the nature of the universe-- or ourselves, for that matter-- in ways that do not directly relate to our survival/reproduction. My theory is that this is a sublimation of our instincts that ultimately improves our ability to survive and spread. And when I say "ultimately", I mean that often we just end up in an intellectual stalemate with ourselves and a perversion of our instincts.

But at any rate, there's a simpler point to be made, in the form of a challenge: prove that anything you think about the universe, or about the mechanism of the brain, is true, without making assumptions that obviously arrive at that conclusion. Hint: you can't start with "Everything is physical. . ." because that is breaking the rules. You have to prove it.

To answer your challenge, tell me what it is I could possibly say to you that would lead you to admit you are wrong. That would give me a ball park as to how you determine what is proof or define "true". My assumption right now is that you asked this question in the OP with the presupposition that there is no answer and that you want to simply prove yourself right by contradicting any explanation you are offered.

[bennyboy]

This is a common assumption. It's a very sensible assumption. But you can't use this particular assumption to make the claim you're making, because it begs the question.

If I were saying that because there is no idea or mind without a body, then there is no mind, I would agree that I am begging the question. But I'm not. I'm saying that since there is no idea/mind without a body, then idea/mind becomes an increasingly unnecessary entity to explain experience. Which leads me to the conclusion that there is no mind, only body.

It's hard to argue against someone who doesn't believe the mind exists, since the ability to form ideas and to argue about them is one of the primary tasks of the mind. To me, I take the mind as brute force, since it is by definition the thing with which I learn through experience. The only way I could even have learned about the existence of the brain is through mental activity. You will insist this is synonymous with brain activity, and I again I will say you are accepting a very convincing and pragmatic assumption-- and again I will say that you are not allowed to use that assumption to prove your conclusion.

Whether it is a common or sensible assumption that a mind cannot exist without a body is inconsequential. It is a well-proven assumption. Feel free to offer proof to the contrary.

I cannot process the word "well-proven assumption." If it's proven, it's not an assumption. That being said, in order to prove your particular assumption (and thereby move it into the realm of absolute knowledge), you're going to have to show how you can use the mind to verify its own nature.

The universe isn't ambiguous, IMO, we are. Any perception is produced by the limitations of sense data which results in uncertainty. How do you go about selecting a perspective? How are you aware of the variety of the perspectives to choose from?

My perspective is a product of my experiences.

To answer your challenge, tell me what it is I could possibly say to you that would lead you to admit you are wrong. That would give me a ball park as to how you determine what is proof or define "true".

The challenge is simple. Explain how, given the experiences you (or a hypothetical thought-experiment equivalent) are able to have, you can arrive at a conclusion about the SOURCE of those experiences with the level of confidence which you have shown. If you are watching a movie, or listening to a radio show, can you know for sure where those sights and sounds are coming from?

In short, prove to me that you've ever had an experience which can confirm that physical monism, and that model ONLY, can represent our experience of truth.

[Walking Void]

Is it not fantastic that We have computers? They show us that You can produce and execute various mathematical problems... but even more, store digital memory.

[bennyboy]

Is it not fantastic that We have computers? They show us that You can produce and execute various mathematical problems... but even more, store digital memory.

Hmmmm. You seem to be making a point, but I'm not sure what it is.

[Walking Void]

Let your curiosity take You.

[bennyboy]

Let your curiosity take You.

The only good reason to leave your meaning to the imagination of others is that you believe others will come up with more clever ideas than you can yourself. This means that with Joseph here, your ideas will be worthy of about a 160 IQ, and mine not much short of that.

Congratulations.