Internet negativity as a philosophical puzzle (NEW DISCLAIMER!)
DISCLAIMER - just want to clarify this is NOT a criticism of this forum, just that it has aspects of all the other forums I've been on, including Facebook (the worst example). In fact the whole internet - that's the focus of my puzzlement. I ONLY find it interesting as a comment on human behaviour in general, not anyone here specifically.
-----
I've only been here for a short time, and I've already noticed the same tendency as many other open forums on the internet.
Negativity. Nastiness hiding behind anonymity. Chest-beating. Condescension, ad hominem attacks. (Note the difference between these things and a good "heated discussion.")
I'm not bemoaning it, in fact I'm used to it, but since this is a philosophy forum I'm wondering "why?" when the opposite could just as easily true. And asking for input. To make it official here's my question:
"Why do human interactions on the internet tend to skew negative, as opposed to positive? What does this say about human behaviour?"
-----
I've only been here for a short time, and I've already noticed the same tendency as many other open forums on the internet.
Negativity. Nastiness hiding behind anonymity. Chest-beating. Condescension, ad hominem attacks. (Note the difference between these things and a good "heated discussion.")
I'm not bemoaning it, in fact I'm used to it, but since this is a philosophy forum I'm wondering "why?" when the opposite could just as easily true. And asking for input. To make it official here's my question:
"Why do human interactions on the internet tend to skew negative, as opposed to positive? What does this say about human behaviour?"
Comments (143)
Excluding politics, which undoubtedly shape the world and laws of the world or society we all will live in, including those who come after us, and to an extent religion, this is a pretty chill and logically focused forum. I like it. Very much.
In your case, you opened with a strong appeal to ‘materialist theory of mind’, a la Dennett/Churchlands/Rosenberg. A lot of people find that a pretty atrocious philosophy (if it actually is a philosophy). That might have something to do with it.
First off, I wasn't whining about my own thread. I've seen many many other examples of other pairs of people going after each other. I could give a damn...remember I've said I'm used to it.
As far as I can see, from studies in Philosophy of Mind pretty much everywhere, materialism is the prevailing belief in current thought. Regardless, are you saying that people here refuse to argue a theory the thinkers you mentioned (no dummies) refuse to engage or argue against a major theory in current thought?
No worries
Are most people here dualists?
My argument is different, more on the common sense, plain language line. If consciousness isn't in the brain:
- why do changes to the brain change consciousness?
- how do thoughts/ideas cause our arms to lift, punch a guy we hate, etc.
I tried to address a few of those in the thread you started on it. But as far as I can see, the arguments are only ‘air-tight’ because you’re predisposed to believing them, so will automatically deprecate counter-arguments.
- As far as the fact that physical changes to the brain affect the mind, I argued, with references, that volitional and intentional changes can work the other way, affecting neural configuration. According to materialism, this ought not to happen, all of the causation should be from matter up to mind, not from mind down to matter. There’s a text book available, Irreducible Mind edited Kelly and Kelly, which has a lot of case studies and published papers which mitigate against materialism. The argument that these are simply material phenomena that science doesn’t yet understand also cuts against materialism.
- If I made an argument that really concerned you or caused doubt or stress, that would have physical consequences like increased heart rate or adrenal activity, Yet nothing physical has passed between us, only ideas, which are themselves not physical, as they can be realised in totally different physical and semiotic forms whilst still retraining their identity.
- I don’t see how the fact that persons can act voluntarily is any kind of argument for materialism. Dead bodies don’t life their arms or anything else so why volitional movement is regarded as being solely material is beyond me. In any form of dualism, the dual nature (i.e. material and mental nature) of human beings is acknowledged.
I tried to address a few of those in the thread you started on it. But as far as I can see, the arguments are only ‘air-tight’ because you’re predisposed to believing them, so will automatically deprecate counter-arguments.
Ok if you feel I'm doing that. I'm not, I think you are...works in a lot of arguments that way.
- As far as the fact that physical changes to the brain affect the mind, I argued, with references, that volitional and intentional changes can work the other way, affecting neural configuration.
The belief that intentional and volitional changes affect neuronal activity. That's a materialist argument. I'm confused. Materialism says the mind and the brain are the SAME, so of course one part of a "thing" can effect another part of it.
maybe we actually agree.
- If I made an argument that really concerned you or caused doubt or stress, that would have physical consequences like increased heart rate or adrenal activity, Yet nothing physical has passed between us, only ideas, which are themselves not physical, as they can be realised in totally different physical and semiotic forms whilst still retraining their identity.
Again I agree. No one is saying consciousness is physical. This seems to be a confusion people have here. How it operates is still not fully understand. But it is part of the brain - if not what causes it?
- I don’t see how the fact that persons can act voluntarily is any kind of argument for materialism.
That not what materialists say! I don't see how the brain can do anything without the mind - THAT'S THE ARGUMENT. Brain affects mind, mind affects brain. To say they are two separate entities is dualism.
Bodies die, brains die and so does consciousness. Mind dies with brain. I don't understand what part of that people don't get
Of course they do! Without minds we'd be zombies, and not philosophical zombies :smile:
That is what is at issue. It’s precisely what eliminative and reductive materialism declare. There is only one kind of ‘substance’ (philosophical not common-or-everyday) and that ‘substance’ is what is described by the fundamental laws of physics. Mind or consciousness ‘supervene’ on the physical i.e. appear to have their own kind of existence, but whatever existence they have is reducible to the physical. If you don’t understand that then it’s quite possible you don’t understand what they’re arguing for.
Modern materialism grew out of Descartes’ dualism. He divided the world into mental and physical. Subsequently, idealist and religious philosophers gravitated to the idea of the primacy of mind - idealism - whereas scientifically-orientated thought developed the other way, especially because of Galileo’s notion of the ‘primary attributes’ of bodies and the related mathematization of nature.
The way the dynamics of the argument played out, it was easy for the scientifically-inclined to dismiss Descartes ‘res cogitas’ as non-existent, ostensibly because of the ‘interaction problem’ that you’ve touched on. But others say that Descartes’ conception of res cogitans was incoherent from the beginning, for reasons I won’t go into here.
IN any case, the whole point about Dennett/Churchlands/Rosenberg is that really do say that the mind has no real existence. What appears to us as ‘mind’ is the unconscious output of billions of cellular transactions that generate the illusory sense of agency. Of course there is some truth in this diagnosis, but that coterie of philosophers pushes it to extremes, and the upshot is, it really does undermine individual agency and the idea of the human as a rational being. That is why beneath the veneer of scientific rationalism, it is a deeply irrational and anti-philosophical attitude and a symptom of the general decline of Western culture.
Because a far greater proportion of communication is carried in body language and social status than we think and so what you think of as a nice warm, open comment is often read as hostile, condescending and combative.
Basically, you're doing what everyone else is doing, it's just that you read their comments in the absence of all the intended additional context but your own with all that implicit context known to you.
I'll read it, but I've read many others. have you read any Churchland?
Wayfarer - my hat goes off to you, if I wore a hat. That was the best summation of the issues I've read here. I was seriously going to bail. I may still, but I'd like to continue this, if you're game. I read no negativity or condescension in your post.
But you're still wrong hah! I just have to really be careful expressing my ideas to you. And I will defer to you, because I don't have the breadth of knowledge you do. But I am annoyingly tenacious.
When I say consciousness isn't physical, I mean that materialism doesn't argue that we don't have feelings, intentions, consciousness or qualia. That would be silly. If you have a feeling, you have a feeling. Materialism just argues all those feelings are creations of neurons interacting. They are still feelings.
If a feeling isn't a part of the brain, what is it? If it's a separate thing, NOT part of the brain, but can affect the brain, how does that occur?
As for agency, I have no idea why the mind being part of the brain - still the same old mind we used to think was separate - has anything to do with personal agency. As I've said, all aspects of the "mind" are exactly the same as when we used to think they were separate.
It seems clear to me that you’re used to it - there’s a defensive over-confidence to much of what you write that suggests you expect to engage in debate rather than discussion. It invites responses from those with confidence in an opposing argument, or at least in the success of their own debating tactics. Your phrasing them as questions in the end (and even your added disclaimer) does little to conceal your intentions here.
From my perspective, I felt your passive-aggressive approach is a serious deterrent to joining in your ‘discussion’. But I hadn’t heard of Patricia Churchland before, and so I am taking an opportunity to read a couple of her articles. I have an interest in the collaboration of neuroscience with psychology, and its implications for philosophy (I find Lisa Feldman Barrett’s work on a constructed theory of emotion sheds some interesting light on the mind-body relation) so I’m intrigued. I am neither a materialist nor a dualist, but I find reductionist methodology to be an important tool to keep philosophers from throwing all their weight behind theories that reduce to solipsism or nihilism. In my view, philosophy should reduce ultimately to physics - but not necessarily through strict materialism, if that makes sense. Quantum physics, I think, plays a key role in this.
But I would still contend that a very large percentage of internet discussions end in acrimony and personal insults. Including many I've gotten caught up in. My point is why?
But I guess this was a misfire and I do apologize for wasting anyone's time.
Interactions on the internet are a sample of humanity as a whole. Whatever you see, whether seen by you as positive or negative depends on where you are looking. Many nice religious sites have nothing but positive content. In philosophy, people who agree with you are not doing you any favors because while agreement is psychologically supportive it is in fact intellectually damaging to whatever your actual purpose is in posing a philosophical point. Only serious critiques are of any use to you, whether clothed in positive or negative verbiage.
Quoting GLEN willows
What is human behavior? Is that some sort of material object?
On another site there’s this poster — Walter — who is calm incarnated. He is always self-loathing, and never ever says anything aggressive about others. I like him very much, he’s a wise man. Yet his very calm composure does irritate folks quite a lot, and is meant to destabilize them and make them look like fools. So in a sense, Walter is something of an « anti-troll » in that his behavior is a polar opposite to usual trolling behavior. And yet he manages to piss off trolls mightily. So he is the troll of the trolls.
It's hard for me - being socially not exactly "astute - to sometimes find a balance. Too timid? Too aggressive. I've been both in my life. That's why I'm Humian when it comes to the self. It's a bundle.
Thanks for your comments.
Don't start...haha.
I realise it can be risky to propose a discussion, to put your thoughts out there unbidden, so I do admire your attempt. You’ll see I’m a little reluctant myself in that department. For future reference, if you had simply posted the question, without the passive-aggressive preamble, it might have garnered a more positive response.
I’m happy to enter discussions with you about philosophy - I think you may have an interesting perspective to contribute here. And there are a large number of participants on this forum who have the capacity for open-minded and charitable discussions. Most will get defensive and interpret some comments as attacks, as I’m sure you do too, but they’re just as quick to calm down when misinterpretations are respectfully pointed out.
So my question to you is: have you wondered why you resort to nastiness and condescension in your own posts? Do you believe your response should reflect the lowest level of interaction?
I used to love pushing the buttons of materialists, if you’re game.
Quoting GLEN willows
It’s hard for all of us, but fortunately, failure to communicate properly is not lethal.
Not just materialism. Everyone can agree that feelings are the creations of neurons firing. Because when the neurons don't fire you don't have the feelings. That can't be coincidence.
Quoting GLEN willows
How about: A separate thing that does not affect the brain only appears to?
But instead, you want to make it so that feelings ARE a material. Then I'd have to ask you what you mean by "matter". More specifically, what is NOT matter? If you cannot answer that question that means that you simply defined everything as matter from the get-go. So of course you will reach the conclusion that.... everything is matter (materialism).
This is the position I call "thingism". It's materialism which is reached by making it so that "matter" is such a widely applicable word, that you might as well have just said "thing". Hence, thingism.
Shouldn't it? Otherwise how would you square it with the conservation laws (energy, momentum, torque, etc). Or are those in doubt for you? Genuine question, not rhetorical.
I believe that if we approach others on the internet in an attitude of hostility we are not going to achieve any meaningful interaction. I have not been on any other forums apart from this one, and when I write comments and threads I am wanting the best possible philosophy discussions. Obviously, this involves a certain amount of argument but this can be constructive. I did not join the forum for nastiness, to give or receive it. I have seen too much of that in daily life and that has often led me away from groups. So, I wish to engage with others who are looking for genuine philosophy debate and the best option I see is when someone does not seem to be coming from that angle it is better to move on and engage with another person instead.
But that's neither here nor there. The real problem, as Wayfarer himself said, was that I opened with a thread about materialism which he called a "pretty atrocious philosophy (if it actually is a philosophy)" and "I don’t think there’s much support for it amongst the regulars." And I LIKE Wayfarer, as my posts show.
That's the real problem...I'm just in the wrong place. My masters is on materialism and neuroscience - the blending of philosophy and science is to me the most exciting area in academia these days. I'm passionate about it, and in fact the prof who is supervising my masters with is on the cutting edge of it all, so I lucked out. (and he's a fan of Bennet and Churchland).
Nonetheless, I'm willing to go against the grain in discussions, but it seems like a pretty steep hill to climb, and will I learn anything new about my chosen area? Seems doubtful.
I waded into the wrong pond, that's all. My mistake was sticking around too long, once I'd seen the way the wind was blowing. I'll move on.
Thanks for you time and thoughts.
Anyway...I appreciate your comments..
I realise you’re teasing, but if you genuinely want a ‘good and charitable’ discussion then I would expect you to model it.
I would disagree that you’re in the wrong place, unless what you’re looking for is agreement rather than philosophical discussion. I’ve been quietly going against the grain here for a couple of years now, and thoroughly enjoyed learning from the discussions I’ve had. I think it’s precisely when we disagree that the most fruitful discussions can be had. I’m not expecting anyone to agree with me here - I’m expecting to learn by striving to understand different philosophical positions in relation to my own.
I think your focus on materialism and neuroscience may be useful here - I’d certainly appreciate both in some of the discussions I’ve had. Are you familiar with Feldman Barrett’s work? I’m also interested in recent collaborations of science and philosophy, particularly the interaction of quantum theory with theories of consciousness.
Obviously you have to choose whether you stay on the forum or not. It sounds like you have an outlet for your philosophy exploration in your present studies. Personally, I wish that I had an outlet but the only real channel for my ideas at the moment is this forum, so I wish to make the best use of it as I can. When I first blundered onto the site, I was fortunate that the recipients in my first couple of weeks showed no hostility. I see this as fortunate because I would have probably just have not logged in again at all and it does bother me that I can imagine that some may encounter initial hostility and withdraw from the forum for this reason.
It took me a while to get to know how to use the forum, about how some engage and about how much I feel safe to self disclose, and how much is relevant. After being on the forum for about 5 months I do get demoralised when I see what appears to be banter, but I just try to ignore this, and I do believe that I am able to gain plenty of meaningful exchange, but it is about finding it. I think this takes time and patience.
I would imagine that you have a lot to contribute, but I would imagine that you need to be selective and find the right thread discussions for you, or you could even risk creating another one rather than just this particular one. I would imagine that a lot of people are extremely interested in serious discussion about neuroscience, as it throws so much light on debates about the nature of consciousness.
- Out of desire to change roles. We pretend to be who we are not. We would wish we were less diplomatic. The Internet makes up for our frustrations.
- Like a game. We like to say things that we do not feel, simply because they are part of the possible discourse.
- As self-affirmation. We want to impress others, by leaving the usual anonymity to which we are condemned.
- By shared idiocy. There is too much fool in the world. Every idiot in the world is not willing to pass in silence while the world praising people who have proven to be talented. A Confederacy of Dunces, bro.
************************
Conclusion: At thirty, everyone bites. Especially in the savannah.
Well said. :clap:
Were you beaten up by a gang of marauding Dennettians as a child or something? Your anti-materialism seems a little irrational at times.
We eat materialists for breakfast on this forum. Ha ha
They're not in doubt, but they have limited explanatory scope.
According to materialism, everything is reducible to physical laws, so it rejects 'top-down' explanations. Dennett calls them (derisively) 'sky hooks'.
When it comes to neurobiology, you would expect that changes to the brain would have cognitive or affective consequences. That's 'bottom-up' causation, and it's not controversial. But the fact that intentional actions can change neural configuration goes against that. That's 'top-down' causation.
Quoting praxis
Our society presumes that materialism must be true. A lot of people don't know what the word means, and wouldn't be able to explain it if you asked them, but it's like the popular wisdom of the age so it's ingrained into the way they think about life. It's like what 'everyone knows' must be true. And no, I was never 'beaten up' by materialists, but I did form the view at a very young age that it's a mistaken understanding.
Quoting GLEN willows
Aw, shucks..... :yikes:
I do try and refrain from sarcasm or getting to heated in online debates, but it's something I had to learn. I used to throw grenades quite often, i.e. make deliberately provocative statements. And I've stayed away at times, but I usually come back, because it's a form of interaction I really like. I think anyone interacting on these forums has to learn to let things go by, you can't leap in and set everyone straight, and when the emotion starts to rise, then that's the time to practice 'mindfulness of breathing'. Yes, you can represent an unpopular or minority attitude, I often do, but try and maintain a sense of detachment about it. That itself is part of the discipline of philosophy.
Where forums are useful is understanding how others think AND understanding what you yourself are trying to articulate.
Quoting Wayfarer
Are contradictory statements. I’m interested in where you get the second. Because I’m not so sure that it’s “intentional actions change neural configuration” as much as “neural reconfiguration comes with the sense of intent” and I’m curious how your source would show that it’s not simply the second.
And what does “limited explanatory scope” mean? They work sometimes and other times not?
Also isn’t this a form of strong emergence that you’re suggesting here? A bunch of atoms come together and somehow that form a “mind” which cannot be reduced to or explained by the atoms and has the ability to change them “top down”.
I’m fine with the “forming the mind” bit, it’s the bit about how that mind can then go back and change the atoms that bugs me. I just can’t conceive of it. It would be like mixing a bunch of gases in a balloon and then noticing that at the right concentrations, for some reason, the conservation laws start to break down. The gas moves randomly then just.... stops for a second.... then resumes. And this is explained by “The mixture created a mind which can then go back and alter the mixture”. Just seems like nothing short of magic.
The closer deeper philosophical ideas are to being objectively true, the more they will be hated. Consider why Jesus and Socrates had to die. They revealed the human condition and the path to freedom for what it is so had to be hated. From the Cave allegory:
[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
If you stimulate real negativity, it may be that you are on the right track.
From a philosophical perspective, when it comes to the nature of the mind, we're dealing in conceptual models, as I said before, mostly descended from Cartesian dualism, which posit 'mind' and 'matter' as separate domains. While this is not inherently mistaken as a model or metaphor, there are implications that have to be understood.
Scientific method works where it can objectify, quantify, and predict. Those are the fundamental elements of the method, which are universal in scope - they can be applied to anything. Correction - to any object, or collections of objects, or observable systems. Phenomena generally, let's say, with which we have a subject-object relatonship.
But 'mind' does not appear anywhere within the domain of phenomena. It's not objectively measurable or perceptible. We can infer that others have minds like our own, and that animals have simpler minds. But we don't know what mind is - which is why Dennett feels compelled to eliminate it! It's the ultimate 'inconvenient truth' - it's right in the middle of everything, but it can't be quantified or objectified and hence is always out of the scope of science, even as a matter of principle. That's the entire story behind Daniel Dennett, there's nothing to it beyond that.
Quoting khaled
Accounting for life and mind is where reductionism breaks down. There's a discontinuity, a leap, between the inorganic, the living, and the imaginal realms. This is one of the reasons that biology has shifted from chemical paradigm, to an information paradigm - that the basis of living organisms can't be reduced to physical laws, such as conservation laws etc, but that a genuinely novel principle is required, nowadays envisaged in terms of information. That already is a break from materialism, without venturing into anything particularly spooky. That's the direction it's going. Old school materialism is pretty well broken down by science itself, nowadays.
//ps//and, yes, magic might indeed be part of it :gasp: //
Most likely because we are interacting with screens instead of human beings. So much of human interaction is missing from the equation to begin with.
Sure but even that doesn’t prove that it was “mind altering matter” so much as “mind being altered as a side effect to matter altering matter”. I don’t see how the lack of piano helps.
Quoting Wayfarer
Sure but the brain is an object. And saying the mind alters the brain, above and beyond the brain altering the brain, would be contradicting the theories we found work everywhere else. As it would suggest that the conservation laws break down in the brain. If they don’t break down in the brain, then the mind isn’t doing anything is it?
Quoting Wayfarer
When I see matter work differently within the human body than literally everywhere else in the universe, I’ll believe it.
It’s not that I want to eliminate minds or that I like the thought that my mind is just a side effect, no, I want to be convinced otherwise but I can’t. Makes no sense to me.
A piano is physical. The idea of a piano is not.
Of course, you might then say that ideas are neuroconfigurations, and here’s where the basic problem lies. We look at all such questions through ideas, we have to have an idea to even decide what is ‘physical’. That is the sense in which the ideal precedes the physical, although I don’t expect you would agree.
Quoting khaled
The brain as an object is an entirely different thing to an embodied brain. Neuroscience and philosophy are different disciplines.
But the claim was that the mind alters the brain above and beyond the brain altering the brain. If so we should expect to see some movement or other in the brain that has no detectable cause (because it was caused by the mind). This is an empirical claim not a philosophical one. One that I haven’t found any evidence for and plenty of evidence against.
Quoting Wayfarer
No, I would say that the idea of the piano did nothing. It was the brain doing things, which resulted in the idea of the piano. The idea of the piano itself is a side effect not a part of the causal chain.
Quoting Wayfarer
Sure. But yes I don’t agree. I don’t think the ideal precedes the physical. The ideal results from the physical but doesn’t affect it. Just coincides with it. That makes the most sense to me. What’s the problem with that?
Apropos, that doesn’t make sense. You can’t assume what you don’t know or understand. Most people are religious, if that suggests anything about societal presumptions of philosophical materialism, and according to a Gallop International poll, only 13% claim to be convinced atheists.
I will support consciousness as outside the brain.
To answer your first question, brain changes resulting in consciousness changes, I propose the following for consideration: the brain is the medium through which we are able to directly control our bodies, and therefore, our ability to communicate our consciousness. It stands therefore that changes to the medium of control will result in perceived changes to consciousness. Perhaps consciousness does not, in truth, change due to changes in the brain, however, if, as a result of a brain change, one is no longer able to communicate at their previous level of consciousness, then, to an observer, consciousness has changed, when in truth, the ability to demonstrate said consciousness has changed.
To address your second question, subconscious learning is responsible for thought/desire leading to action. Your body learned to react to thoughts and desires before the brain learned formal language, effectively removing these "basic" processes from the formal though pathways which we have grown accustomed to. We plan our movements along a pathway, consciously, when there are choices available to us regarding those pathways. For example, I want to go get a coffee (desire) should I take the stairs (pathway A) or the elevator (pathway B) to the coffee shop? The path is optional, however, walking is required on either path and the control of my legs and balance is not part of my formal consciousness, however is part of my subconsciousness; as otherwise I would continue to walk on you chosen path even if I lost consciousness, similarly to how we continue to breath and have a heart beat even when unconscious. Our formal consciousness operates much too slowly to process all of the requirements of movement otherwise. This is why martial artists practice their moves so much, so that the body remembers what to do in response to a perceived threat subconsciously and reaction time does not rely on the very slow formal consciousness processing. Think about how fast you move your hand if you think about pulling it away as quickly as you can. Then recall the last time you spilled boiling water on it, and the reaction time associated with that. Subconscious reaction is much faster than formal consciousness reaction. Bruce Lee did not stop to consider all the implications of the possibilities of the actions of his opponents, his body reacted to their movements faster than formal consciousness could process the movement. Practice and conditioning in harmony.
If ‘the idea’ had been injected, or ingested, as a physical substance, which caused changes to the brain, then I would agree. But the suggestion is, it was changed by an act of thought.
Quoting khaled
‘What makes sense’ is an idea, not anything physical.
But you haven’t shown that. It could also be the case that the thought coincided with the neural change. Not that it caused it. For it to have caused it:
Quoting khaled
Quoting Wayfarer
When did I say otherwise?
I’m not disagreeing that we have non physical ideas. I’m disagreeing that they can have physical effects. That they can be part of the causal chain.
So what would you expect to see? How would you test for it?
We would look at the an act. Say, raising your arm. And check whatever neuron results in the raising. Then you’d ask a participant to freely choose to raise their arm at any point in time.
If the mind is causing the excitation of those neurons, you’d expect them to fire without any physical causes. They didn’t fire because of some chemical chain reaction or anything, no, they just went off suddenly. They got energy out of nowhere, seemingly.
Then we can attribute that to the mind of the participant doing something.
Otherwise, the mind isn’t really part of the causal chain is it? This is what top down action would imply. It would imply some movement in the brain that we cannot detect a cause for (since it was caused by the mind)
Suppose there was a scenario whereby a subject is undergoing brain surgery while conscious. This is possible as the brain is insensitive to pain. The operating surgeon is able to elicit sensations and recollections, as well as movements, by stimulating areas within the brain. You would think that if this process was mechanical then the subject wouldn’t be able to tell if these were a consequence of the surgeon’s activities. But if the subject could tell that these movements were being triggered by the surgeon, what would that say?
Quoting khaled
Neurons don’t do anything. Attributing voluntary actions to cells or brains or other metabolic systems is called ‘the mereological fallacy.’
What is “this process” that is mechanical? I don’t understand.
I’ll suppose you mean the movements and sensations the surgeon is triggering.
If so we actually have evidence that, yes, they wouldn’t be able to tell. Provided they can’t literally see themselves being operated on and even then it’s dubious. Split brain patients for example, express different answers to questions when asked to write the answer vs say the answer, because a different half is responsible for each.
When asked to explain this inconsistency they never say “because my brain is split, so one part answered the first question and another answered the second”. No, they always come up with some random explanation. Like “Oh, I changed my mind”. And they are not lying they genuinely think this.
Quoting Wayfarer
That the brain causes the movements. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. It seems to be an argument for my position.
Heck, if the mind can alter the brain top down, you’d expect this surgeon to be met with some resistance if he tries to make you do something you don’t want to do. So for example, if he tried to stimulate your arm to rise, and you don’t want it to, he should physically experience some pushback caused by your mind during the operation. I highly doubt that will happen. Do you think it will? And don’t you think it should?
Quoting Wayfarer
I said “the neuron that results in raising”. As in the one that, when fired, results in raising the arm. The one the surgeons tempers with. I know it’s not one neuron I’m simplifying.
I didn’t say anything about neurons voluntarily doing anything.
And no I don’t see what the hypothetical is supposed to provide because I don’t understand it.
Do you mean to say that the subjects will definitely be able to tell that the surgeon is manipulating them? If so you might wanna read the edits. I don’t think it’s obvious at all that the subject would be able to tell.
Quoting khaled
Mechanical means explication in terms of cellular actions; as distinct from voluntary.
Do you know this or are you assuming it is what will happen?
Because I gave an example where the exact opposite happens above. I think the patients would only be able to tell if the arm muscles were the ones being stimulated directly. But if you go up in the causal chain all the way to the brain, they wouldn’t be able to tell eventually.
But more importantly, ok let’s say the subject can, in fact differentiate (though I’m still interested if they actually will or if you are assuming they will), what does that prove?
In my model I could just say that the brain can “know” when these areas are tempered with. As in, when these areas are stimulated despite the preceding chemical chain not occurring, and when you hold in memory that you are being operated on, you logically process this and say that the surgeon did it.
In short: There is a physical difference between the surgeon tampering with a neuron and the same neuron firing naturally. And that difference can account for how the subject can tell. So it doesn’t contradict my position.
But, again, the mind has not been shown to be causing anything here. If this was proof of anything it would be the mind being immaterial. I don’t disagree there.
Quoting Wayfarer
What does this mean?
Quoting Wayfarer
Is the claim here that voluntary action somehow changes the course of cellular action? That the mind breaks physics and chemistry?
The words "philosophy" and "to philosophize" also have distinctly negative connotations.
When the opportunity presents itself, I poke around a little when people become irate in reference to philosophy in some way.
So far, I've discovered that they experience philosophy as a breach of their personal boundaries, as disrespect to their persons.
This probably has to do with people's tendency to strongly identify with their thoughts, their beliefs, to see them as parts of their person. So that when someone in any way steps on the metaphorical toes of those beliefs (such as by discussing them, less or more philosophically), people feel like someone actually physically stepped on their toes, or worse.
The non-reductionist claim is that mind is not reducible to physical principles. It doesn’t ‘break’ those laws but says that their scope is limited - which is what materialism can’t abide. As far as it is concerned physical laws are the only kind, everything else is reducible to them. If that is not true, then materialism is false.
As regards Penfield - read the synopses, there’s a lot of commentary out there. There are those who say his work is out-dated or obviously flawed but he was a very careful and meticulous operator and his work is based on a lifetime of up-close observation. He can’t be accused of armchair speculation.
Why would you think that? What has physical detection of the origin of a signal got to do with it?
Scenario 1 - some set of neurons fire which causes two neural events, one the firing of sensorimotor neurons leading to the movement of the arm, two a trace of the initiating process through hippocampus.
Scenario 2 - the surgeon's stimuli causes the firing of the sensorimotor neurons, but not the trace of that initiation through the hippocampus.
On recollecting the two scenarios, they're different because one has a trace of the initiating event and the other doesn't
What do you not understand about that?
Do you think his ideas have been discredited?
Sure and I agree with that. What I'm disagreeing with is that the mind causes any physical changes "top down". Which is what I understand you claimed.
If the book you cited simply wants to claim that mind is not reducible to brain then I don't think there is much value in me reading it, since I already agree.
Quoting Wayfarer
Their scope is limited only to explaining how material things interact with each other.
However the brain is a material thing.
A "top down" interference would imply breaking physics. It would imply the mind changing the brain. A non-physical thing messing with a physical system. That's nothing short of telekinesis.
However, as they say, no smoke without fire and given we're all human, equally virtuous as equally depraved, I'm not in the least bit surprised by your pronouncements on this and perhaps other forums. To be frank, I've seen my fair share of hate but allow for the fact that "hate" maybe too strong a word in this context.
Anyway, my own experience informs me that when people attack and demolish some of my cherished beliefs it hits where it hurts the most because, as it appears to me, these cherished ideas form a framework of sorts that allows me to make sense of my experiences and when someone proves/insists sans proof that I've been holding the wrong end of the stick all this while, it's quite unbearable. I liken the experience to a physicist taking his beloved equations and applying it to a blackhole - you know what happens, right? The equations, those very tools that explain the rest of the universe, crash into a pile of absolute incomprehensibility. When that happens, chaos and you know what that leads to right? Pandemonium of emotions, I fly off the handle and in the heat of the moment, the tongue/fingers seems to have a life of its own, spitting/jotting out/down words that are a series of invectives/put-downs/insults/expletives designed for one and only one thing - derail the discussion to prevent any further damage to ideas dear to my heart.
This, of course, is not the full story.
My two cents.
Yes. Without doubt. Since the discovery of how the memory forms traces of neural events the idea of someone directly interfering at any point, unnoticed, has been discredited. We know what's going on in our brains because the activity leaves traces which we then (fallibly) interpret in recollection.
Early neurosurgeons were very like garden machinery mechanics sent to work on a space rocket. Whatever neural events you imagine happen when a particular mental or physiological event occurs, multiply that by several thousand and you may just be close to what is actually happening.
It's difficult to even estimate, but we're probably talking about several billion firings a second. so every second several billion pathways of neural chains are being started. Are we surprised when the surgeon intercepts just one, that the others are nonetheless related to the rest of the brain's perceptions?
I dispute that. The brain is an embodied organ.
Quoting Isaac
I think that is rather condescending in respect to Penfield. He didn’t live in Elizabethan England. But I will commit to reading the whole book before commenting further.
What does that mean? What does the "Embodied" serve to add there? Does it mean "Physics breaks there"?
Far as I can tell the brain strictly falls within the list of things that are material. You can hold it, see it, everything. It's not even like a "Quantum probability wave" or electron where things start to get iffy (because you can't see or touch them).
If you drop it it will fall at the rate of any other material object, that’s for sure. But being able to hold it or see it or weigh it tells you nothing about what it does.
The reference to ‘embodied’ is with respect to ‘embodied cognition’. And the point of that perspective is that ‘the brain’ in itself, is an inert collection of stuff. Only when it is situated in a body, in a nervous system, and in an environment, is its power realised.
Yes, something like that. The fear of discovering that there’s no firm conceptual ground under their certitudes.
Well it should tell me that energy is conserved there. That momentum is conserved there. Unless the brain is somehow magical and telekinesis is just a common occurrence within for some reason (despite not being detected anywhere else in the outside world).
But if not, then there really is no role for the mind to interfere. The brain, embodied, is a physical system. Physical laws should hold there. Where can the mind come in? If it ever does, and causes some movement, we'd have movement with no detectable cause. That would mean energy or momentum is not being conserved.
Quoting Wayfarer
Sure no one is disputing that.
And no one is disputing that the mind is a result of this embodied brain.
What is being disputed is that the mind affects the brain or body "top down".
If the body can affect the mind, then it logically follows that the mind can affect the body.
No it doesn't? What's the logical principle there?
The weather can affect me but I can't affect the weather.
The weather can affect me but I can't affect the weather.
And what would the mind affecting the body look like, exactly? How do you square it with conservation of momentum and energy?
In determining meaning, which determines course of action. That involves more than physics although obviously physics is a factor.
What exactly do you mean here? How does determining the meaning change the course of action?
If, say you want to raise your arm. Does your mind telekinetically fire certain neurons?
What is the mechanism by which determining meaning leads to a course of action?
I suppose the more neurotic types have such a fear. But most probably just feel offended, righteously indignant, with no further thought given as to how come.
I might decide your reply is not worth responding to. Then I won’t respond. The ‘mechanism’ is not really a mechanism, to call it that is itself reductionist. Anyway the Australian Open final is playing, over and out.
Sure and that decision, and the thought that the decision had causal power, were both results of certain neural changes. Not the other way around. No top down action occurred. None that you have been able to show. Even though I outlined the conditions for showing it, the examples you gave did not satisfy.
Sure it will. If you can find a neuron firing without any physical cause. We can then attribute that to a mind doing something top down. The condition is specific. But you haven't given an experiment that satisfies it.
And as far as I can tell the only "experiment" you gave was never done and you assumed its conclusion. And even if it was done, and the conclusion was what you wanted, it would still not contradict my position.
Quoting Wayfarer
The quote argues against materialism. Which is not what I am arguing for. For the third time... I really liked the quote when I read it the first time actually.
I'm arguing against "top down" causation from minds to brains. Because it is simply telekinesis.
It's a principle of physics though.
The weather you are exposed to can affect you, and in turn you can somewhat control the weather you are exposed to. For one thing, you can travel to sunnier shores. For another, you can take shelter to reduce your exposure to adverse weather, eg cold or rain. Certain species hibernate to skip the colder months.
It would look very familiar, like a normal conversation between people, like a sportsman running an obstacle course, like a mathematician writing down on paper the proof of a theorem, or like two chess players fighting over the board. None of these simple, familiar event can be understood without recourse to some capacity of symbolic language (and thus abstract human thoughts) to produce physical outcomes.
I don't know, but it squares well with the principle of action-reaction.
Sure but we’re not talking about physics are we?
In fact we’re talking about something non physical. A mind. Asking whether or not it causes physical changes.
Quoting Olivier5
False. All of them can be understood in terms of a sufficiently advanced neurology and biology. Since that’s all they are. Neurological events leading to certain physical outcomes. The burden of proof is on you to show that the mind has any room to interfere here.
I’m not denying that we have a symbolic language and abstract thoughts. I’m denying they interfere in the causal chain. Because if they do then they contradict conservation laws.
If you want to say the mind does something physical, and that the mind is non physical, we should expect to find movements in the brain with no detectable cause (since they were caused by a non physical mind). That would contradict conservation laws. So that’s evidence to suggest minds don’t cause physical change.
On the other hand, the only evidence to suggest that minds cause some physical change, is that physical changes are always preceded by certain thoughts. For example: when I feel like raising my hand, that is followed by my hand rising. However, this does not imply causation.
Quoting Olivier5
Well that’s a problem innit?
And the principles of action-reaction only has any meaning when referring to physical things bumping into each other. It makes no sense to apply it to mind production. “Action” does not include the production of minds. It only includes physical things affecting physical things. And hence, brains affecting minds does not lead to minds affecting brains. Because brains affecting minds isn’t a physical action to begin with, so is not subject to action-reaction. And neither is the other way.
But regardless, this is confused. The principle of action reaction implies the conservation laws and vice versa. So you can’t satisfy one and not the other. And the position that minds cause physical changes satisfies neither. As it would imply an “action” without any reaction. A force, that has no detectable source (since it was caused by the mind) and consequently no opposing equal force.
We are talking of the mind-body problem in a scientific, i.e. 'physical' conceptual frame. That is precisely why you raise physical laws such as the conservation of energy in this discussion. Otherwise, drop that argument.
What is the mind, is part of that whole question. You can't assume the answer before solving the riddle. You cannot assume it is some metaphysical or supernatural thing. It looks very natural to me.
Quoting khaled
I don't think so. Biology is not that advanced.
The very concept of 'proof' requires or assumes that human thoughts and language can say something meaningful and true about the world. It therefore assumes the existence and effectiveness of human minds, and has no meaning outside this assumption.
Natural? Sure.
Physical? Definitely not.
Does your mind have momentum? Mass? Velocity?
If it has any of these things that means I can physically pick it up. I struggle to see how the word “mind” can ever be applied to something you can pick up. I’m sure you’d agree with me there.
Otherwise are you pushing for a materialist view?
Quoting Olivier5
Sure. But once it becomes that advanced....
Quoting Olivier5
If by this you mean a “materialist frame” then no, that’s not what I’m talking about.
Quoting Olivier5
I don’t know exactly what “that” means. But I raise them because they contradict the view that the mind does things “top to bottom”. Which is your and wayfarers view.
First, do you agree that they contradict? And if they do, what evidence do you have that top to bottom interference occurs that is so powerful, that it makes it worth throwing these laws in the trash (because that’s what you would be doing by admitting top down action)?
Quoting Olivier5
The assumption that thoughts and language say something meaningful and true, is not the same as the thought that they effectively cause physical changes. You can have the former without the latter.
My mind has a certain velocity, not very high. I am trying to improve it by playing blitz chess.
Does light have a mass?
Quoting khaled
You can't pick it up, I agree, but you can lose it.
Quoting khaled
Once it become more advanced, it will provide further proof of the ability of the human mind to understand the world, and itself...
Quoting khaled
I don't.Quoting khaled
You can't have the former without the latter. It would imply that for a human being, knowing the truth about some case is irrelevant to whatever he or she can do about the case, i.e. that knowledge is powerless. But if this is true, if truth and knowledge are indeed powerless, why do you even bother with them, Khaled?
Because intuitively you suspect that knowledge is power.
What’s the direction and how many meters per second are we at?
Quoting Olivier5
Sort of.
Quoting Olivier5
Sure. When was that in dispute?
Quoting Olivier5
Why not?
Is it not the case that a mind causing something would mean there is a movement for which there is no physical cause?
And is that not an example of a net increase in momentum?
Which part of the argument do you have issue with?
Quoting Olivier5
Sort of. Explained below.
Quoting Olivier5
Doesn’t follow.
Think of it this way. Let’s call physical events P and mental events M.
P1 causes M1. M1 being knowledge of how to bake a cake. And P1 being reading a book about it for example.
You think that then, M1 goes on to cause P2, the baking of the cake. That’s an interactionist picture.
I think that, no, nothing follows from M1. Instead P2 is also caused by P1.
To say that knowledge is pointless or powerless is to say that even if M1 occurred, P2 wouldn’t occur. That is not the case in either of our pictures.
Even in my view, if M1 occurs, it necessarily follows that P2 will occur. Even though M1 doesn’t cause P2 directly or indirectly
So, in a sense, M1 is powerless on its own yes. But its mere occurrence also implies that P2 will occur. So in that sense knowledge is power. As any time it occurs, some action based on it follows or becomes available.
You can say M1 implies P2. But not M1 causes P2. As that would be telekinesis.
No, it doesn't.
---
Quoting khaled
When you said:
Quoting khaled
------
Quoting khaled
And what proof do you have of the "net" part? How do you know it doesn't consume say chemical energy?
I don't understand how that leads to saying that the human mind can somehow not understand the world and itself. So I don't see the dispute.
Quoting Olivier5
If a movement is consuming chemical energy then it's a physical thing that is causing it no? Where does the mind come in when chemical energy is converted to some mechanical energy?
You said: biology will one day prove that the human mind "does not interfere"; and yet biology itself is a product of the human mind. Any time biologists find something, their mind "interferes". Any time they write down a paper, their mind acts on the world.
Quoting khaled
In the decision to do so, apparently.
Correct.
Quoting Olivier5
Non sequitor. It could be the case that the workings of their minds are a side effect. It remains to be seen that they are causal.
Again, M1 can imply P2 but doesn’t necessarily cause it. A desire to understand biology can imply a bunch of different things from writing papers to conducting studies. But that alone doesn’t prove it is causal.
Quoting Olivier5
That’s not answering the question.
What role does the mind fulfill? Chemical energy gets converted to electrical energy in batteries, do you need a mind there too? Is the battery “deciding” to work?
Or it can cause it... Or make it more likely. I am not aware of anything in this world that would or could be non causal, that could not have any effect on anything else... That looks like magic thinking to me. It would also break the law of action-reaction, as I explained already.
Quoting khaled
Making decisions.
Anonymity is certainly one element in the negative sniping; another is a feature of rhetoric: Subtraction is easier than addition. It's just easier to fault another's opinion than it is to validate and make positive contributions. Or, writers think they come sounding more incisive and discriminating in making negative arguments (or comments) than in positive ones.
Moderators help a great deal. Eliminating habitual flame-throwers helps a great deal.
Sure. And what physical impact does that have, precisely? How do you go from the decision to the movement? Where on the causal chain of the movement is the decision?
Quoting Olivier5
Your explanation was faulty. You can’t apply physical laws when talking about minds. It’s as ridiculous as claiming your mind has a mass or color.
My explanation was correct, but your mind causes nothing to happen at all, not even understanding, so it has many limitations.
When you can’t defend your position your resort to ad Homs as if that accomplishes anything.
Respond to the question or don’t bother
Quoting khaled
And, no. For the reasons I outlined above, action reaction doesn’t apply here.
Quoting khaled
To all intents and purposes, you seem to be arguing for materialism, but then you say that you're not arguing for materialism. So it's hard to counter an argument that seems self-contradictory.
If I physically approached you and gave you a drug, or hit you in the head - not that I would - then something physical would have occured and it would have very likely have physical consequences.
But if I engage in an argument with you, then nothing physical has passed between us. Only words which you interpret and agree with or disagree with. The rules which govern the relationships of words are grammatical, semiotic and linguistic. They're not physical laws, and they operate independently of them.
That's why I don't understand how you can say that such things as reasoned argument are physical, or can be seen as 'neural events'.
If you say that ideas are physical, then I think the burden of proof lies with you.
A philosophical dualist would argue that there are two levels - the physical level, which is governed by and responds to physical effects. In respect of neurobiology physical effects include the effects of drugs or surgery or injury to the brain. That is ‘bottom-up causation’.
The other level is the level of meaning, language, and reason. That is not governed by physical laws, but by grammatical rules and conventions of meaning - semiotics, syntax, grammar. Those are the activities of the mind. And insofar as that effects the body, for example in psychosomatic medicine or by causing neurological changes, then that is 'top-down causation'.
Do you recognise the need for two levels?
Quoting khaled
So, what happened?
Another thing - all of these inventions that surround you, including the one that you’re using to read and respond to these arguments - they are the consequence of symbolic language and abstract thought, are they not? They don’t grow on trees or fall miraculously from the sky. People invent them, and they invent them, because science enables them to make discoveries, to uncover previously-unknown properties of matter and energy through the use of symbolic reasoning. So if ‘the causal chain’ is ‘something that results in the construction of a device’, how can you deny that symbolic language and abstract thought interfere in the causal chain? Left to it’s own devices, a natural causal chain would not result in any devices whatever. Just more babies.
No they are not. Symbolic language and thought coincide with our inventing and use of such devices. They do not cause it. That is my hypothesis. Yours is that they do have an effect. But you do not think something like telekinesis is possible. So how, exactly do they have an effect? How does a thought result in movement? Because to me, that's nothing short of telekinesis.
I agree that actions follow thoughts. I do not see proof that the thoughts are causal however.
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm arguing for epiphenomenalism if anything.
Quoting Wayfarer
When have I said so? That's rubbish.
Quoting Wayfarer
Sure there are mental things and physical things. What I don't recognize is that there is top down causation. Because no proof of such a thing has been provided. And I outlined how it can be provided.
Quoting Wayfarer
The quote didn't contradict anything I thought and it was very concise and straightforward. So I liked it.
'So, at this intersection, I thought, I've been here before, I remember that KFC store. We turn right here.'
I turned right.
Apparently this is telekinesis. Next, I'll try spoon-bending. I might be able to make a buck from it.
Yes it is quite apparent.
You want to say that the thought caused some chemical reaction in your brain. And that in turn eventually caused the turning. That first step is telekinesis.
So we humans have telekinetic powers within our own brain only. The second you step outside of it our minds suddenly lose their magical ability to make things move and to cause neurons to fire.
That's what I don't get about interactionism.
In my view, that thought that you've been there before, remembering the KFC store, and turning right, all of it happened, and is real, and is immaterial (except the turning right bit). But is not causal. It just coincides with the turning. Whatever your brain is doing as you are having the thought, that's what causes the turning, not the thought. What is wrong with that picture? Because you're making fun of it but I don't see why. What's absurd?
That my memory of the route does not cause me to take it. That I only turn right ‘as a coincidence’. That nobody can ever do anything intentionally.
What proof do you have that it did? That remembering the route precedes taking it? That’s not proof of causality.
Quoting Wayfarer
Who said coincidence?
Think of it this way. Let’s call physical events P and mental events M.
P1 causes M1. M1 being remembering the route. And P1 being seeing the KFC.
You think that then, M1 goes on to cause P2, the turning. That’s an interactionist picture.
I think that, no, nothing follows from M1. Instead P2 is also caused by P1.
To say that it is a coincidence is to say that even if M1 occurred, P2 wouldn’t occur sometimes. That is not the case in either of our pictures.
Even in my view, if M1 occurs, it necessarily follows that P2 will occur. Even though M1 doesn’t cause P2 directly or indirectly
Just because M1 doesn’t cause P2 doesn’t mean P2 is a coincidence.
Quoting Wayfarer
How is the turning not intentional in my view? You had the intention to turn. You then turned. What is missing?
As for your view, it suggests that we have limited telekinetic powers. That’s what I find absurd there. If you think it doesn’t suggest that then please explain how it doesn’t. I’ve told you why I think it does.
You started the ad hom. Don't cry me a river now. You called my ideas ridiculous and faulty, without any other argument that "minds are not physical", which is itself a pretty ridiculous argument because it assumes you know what the mind is made of...
So stop calling others ridiculous, and start putting your mind at work.
Sure and you’re welcome to call my ideas ridiculous and faulty. But that’s different from saying “you’re incapable of understanding”. Which is what you did.
And I assure you, I’m not crying.
But if I seemed antagonistic I apologize. I seriously didn’t mean to.
Quoting Olivier5
I didn’t think that was in dispute. Me and wayfarer have been talking about non physical minds this whole time when you came in. And when I asked “are you arguing for materialism” you didn’t answer so I assumed the answer is “no”. Aka that minds are not material.
So... are you arguing that minds are physical? In that case then there would be no issue with minds interacting with brains and vice versa. But I don’t see how materialism makes sense.
Quoting khaled
Then what are the sounds, electrical signals, ink marks or whatever forms the substrate of your conversation?
Quoting Wayfarer
They don't. Not without breaking fundamental laws of physics. You're positing a system which defies the laws of physics - despite being well within the purview of physics ("causing neurological changes" - a physical event). If something defying the laws of physics isn't reason to look elsewhere, then what is? Are you seriously suggesting that "It seems that way to me" is a stronger argument the "It is consistent with all the laws of physics"?
I said “coincides with” but I didn’t mean it was a coincidence. I meant “accompanies”.
But do you actually intend to address what I’m saying? I’m dedicating an awful lot of time and typing into this so if you’re only going to give cursory responses to half of what I type like these I don’t think there is much point in continuing.
Given that we agree there, what’s your stance? Epiphenomenalism? Something else? Are you a dualist in the first place? I’m curious.
What I believe is that the mind is perfectly natural, and that it exists for a reason. It does things. That's why we have one. Same as for your nostrils, your hair and your feet: you have them for a reason, they serve a purpose.
I believe the purpose of the mind is to integrate information from all sources to support decision making.
I also believe that everything in this universe is connected via cause-and-effect to other things. So to me, the idea of a thing (the mind) having no effect on other things is simply impossible. The mind as you describe it (a dead-end of causality) appears to me a logical impossibility. Not to mention that it'd be totally useless...
What 'you are saying' constantly changes, so it is impossible to address it.
Quoting khaled
I agree.
Quoting Olivier5
It’s what physicists study.
Quoting Olivier5
I don’t really buy the argument from evolution.
You can remove a persons nostrils or feet. And they will have a lower chance to survive. But you can’t remove a mind.
It seems to me that minds come “free of charge” with a sufficiently advanced organism. They’re not like feet that require energy and cell replacement. They don’t have a cost. So it would make sense for them to exist and serve no purpose.
Quoting Olivier5
I would flip it. When you integrate enough information minds pop out. Or something like that.
Quoting Olivier5
Logical? Again, cause and effect is not a logical principle.
But I can understand if you said “seems absurd”.
Then either I am misspeaking or you’re misinterpreting because what I have in mind has been constant.
And no it did not cause me to type this!
Anyways good luck spoonbending. (Joking)
Epiphenomenalism of a sort. I think minds are a model we make of the processes in our brains. Models are (mostly public) constructs which act to minimise surprise in the variables of hidden states. When certain neurons are firing and we want to minimise the surprise in the hidden states (we don't literally know which neurons are firing) we create a model which we call thoughts, which proceeds according to the rules of the model - logic, aesthetics etc. This then minimises surprise at the condition of the subsequent hidden states.
Since what we talk about as 'reality' consists entirely of these models, I don't have a problem with calling the mind 'real'. But since our best model of physical stuff (like neurons) requires things like the law of conservation of momentum, I don't think we would have a very useful model if we said that 'mind' was the sort of thing that could affect neurons. that would require us to make too many changes to the models of physical reality, for no good reason.
Wouldn’t that require us to know what neurons are before making words that describe their hidden states? But clearly words such as “anger” are older than “Amygdala”
Only part I disagree with really, that the model “thoughts” and “minds” is used to talk about neuron firings. If it was I would think you need to know what neurons are before talking about thoughts.
You can lose your mind. You can also temporarily suspend its operations. It's called sleep.
Quoting khaled
Why do you think people have to sleep? Sleep is quasi universal in the animal kingdom yet nobody knows why... Even insects sleep. It could be that minds suck up a lot of energy, or something else that gets depleted after a while, needing restauration. Sleep may be the price to pay for minds.
Quoting khaled
Nit picking. There is no place for causal dead ends in my world view. Any thing that exists can have an effect on other things. Otherwise how do we know it exists???
Something that has no effect on other things ought to be untraceable.
Yeah. Our models are changing all the time. Before neurons we would have had very different models.
I meant you can’t remove JUST the mind. You can’t create a philosophical zombie.
Plenty of physical changes happen when you sleep. You can’t remove the mind without making these changes. The mind is not some “extra sauce” added to the brain that you can choose not to add. It comes with it. And if you change the brain up enough you lose it (such as when you sleep)
Quoting Olivier5
Definitely not to rest our minds, but our brains and bodies.
Quoting Olivier5
Maybe. Or maybe it’s just the cost of brains and bodies.
Quoting Olivier5
I can imagine a pebble in space that is still and so far away from anything that it’s effect is negligible.
If such a pebble existed we would know it exists by seeing it.
So, the word “anger” had a different meaning before neurology?
What do you mean?
'Meaning' is a slightly different matter. I hold a broadly Wittgensteinian view that the meaning of a word is found by looking to its use. This might not be exhausted by the label we give to some predictive model. That would, most likely, only be one of many uses, and so one of many meanings. In regards to that specific use though (labelling a particular predictive model), then yes.
We now know stuff about anger which we did not know before, and that new knowledge will be integrated into our models.
I don’t think “anger” works as a label of a predictive model in everyday use. Sure, certain neurons firing cause anger, but we don’t use the word “anger” to bring that to mind typically.
Other than that, sure agreed.
Our bodies can rest without sleeping, so that can't be it. Our brain, maybe, possibly because sustaining a mind is a very tiring thing.
Quoting khaled
Comatose people, brain damaged people etc.
Quoting khaled
And thus this pebble would have had an effect on us, since we saw it.
Not the kind of rest you get from sleeping. A quick google search came up with this:
Human growth hormone (HGH), on the other hand, is one of the primary compounds that allows muscles to recover and grow. Among other functions, our bodies need it to actually use the amino acids present in the protein we eat. As it happens, the time when the bloodstream is flooded with the stuff is - you guessed it - during sleep.
Among countless other examples.
Quoting Olivier5
Or because sustaining a brain is a very tiring thing.
Quoting Olivier5
Brain damaged people are an example of removing the mind without changing the brain? No. By definition of "brain damaged"
Quoting Olivier5
Alright fair enough. I can't think of any other examples of a causal dead end other than minds. But that's not a problem for me since I don't have a problem with causal dead ends existing, or us knowing about them.
These things you move to long term memory when you sleep, do they have a mass, a volume or a number? I guess not, and hence you are talking of mind stuff, of sleep as a maintenance period for minds.
You see, not everything that exists is breakable into countable units. Take the laws of physics for instance. They have no mass either, so by your criteria the laws of physics are not physical... And yet I think they do exist.
Quoting khaled
Who said anything about not changing the brain? You said the mind can't be removed, and I said it can, period.
"Moving to long term memory" is nothing more and nothing less than a figure of speech describing a neurological process.
Quoting Olivier5
Agreed. The laws of physics are not physical. They are models in our minds. They're mental.
And yes, the laws of physics do not exist in the same way a rock does. They exist as models in our minds and nothing more.
Quoting Olivier5
Me. Here:
Quoting khaled
and here:
Quoting khaled
What is the mass of a neurological process?
Quoting khaled
A brain-dead or brain-damaged person still has a brain. The organ has not been removed; it's still there but not processing.