Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Substance Dualism

Yarowold
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 4:37:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it's untrue.

If the mind and brain are two different entities, the mind being non-material, which process does it utilize to interact with materials, such as the brain?

Most of what we know about the brain is physical and follows the laws of physics, which more or less, everything does. And as soon as measurements of the "mind" can be done, it would automatically become either a part of existing physics or added to it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 5:00:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 4:37:51 PM, Yarowold wrote:
I think it's untrue.

Me as well.


If the mind and brain are two different entities, the mind being non-material, which process does it utilize to interact with materials, such as the brain?

Well, I think an immaterial substance cannot interact with material substance. This is why I deny material substances (and thus, Substance Dualism). As I believe the mind is immaterial.


Most of what we know about the brain is physical and follows the laws of physics, which more or less, everything does. And as soon as measurements of the "mind" can be done, it would automatically become either a part of existing physics or added to it.

That is simply not true though. There are thought experiments to show that no matter how much we know about material things, and physical processes, we will never know everything about the mind or consciousness.

"Marry, the famous color blind neuroscientist, spends her entire life in a black and white room. She has never seen a color, but she knows everything there is to know about the neuroscience of color; the wave-length of light, the neurons that fire in response, the behavior that gives rise to it... She could tell you all about 'red' and 'green' and 'blue', but there is this one incredibly important thing about she just doesn't know. She doesn't know what it is like to see red, to see green.. She doesn't know about the conscious experience of red and green; all the brain science in the world isn't going to tell her that. Imagine one day she gets an operation, she leaves her room, and says 'ah, that's it, that is what it is like to see red!'... She has learned something new about consciousness." - David Chalmers (Cognitive Scientist and Philosopher of Mind)

So, the idea of physical facts being all there are is unlikely.

Also, "The Neural Binding Problem(s)" which was published in the Journal of Cognitive Neurodynamics in 2013, by Jerome Feldman (which was heavily peer-reviewed) shows that some important parts of the mind have to be immaterial:

According to the study:

"There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al., 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins, 2003) and there is no area that could encode the detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry."

So, the brain cannot even explain all of my mental states in principle. There are more arguments, but I am convinced the mind is immaterial. However, I believe that Substance Dualism is false because interaction between immaterial mental properties and material properties is logically incoherent. This is why I think Idealism is true.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 9:05:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 4:15:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think it is true, or untrue?

I thought up a reply to what you've said about the interaction problem... So, assuming that things need similar properties to interact...

How do we know that the mind and body have completely different properties? It seems to be invalid reasoning to me.

P1: All material objects have property X.
P2: The mind is not material.
C: .'., the mind does not have property X.

But this is clearly a case of an invalid categorical syllogism. It's like saying...

P1: All men are mortal.
P1: My rabbit Thumper is not a man.
C: .'., Thumper is not mortal.

Thoughts?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 9:23:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 9:05:31 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:15:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think it is true, or untrue?

I thought up a reply to what you've said about the interaction problem... So, assuming that things need similar properties to interact...

How do we know that the mind and body have completely different properties? It seems to be invalid reasoning to me.

P1: All material objects have property X.
P2: The mind is not material.
C: .'., the mind does not have property X.

But this is clearly a case of an invalid categorical syllogism. It's like saying...

P1: All men are mortal.
P1: My rabbit Thumper is not a man.
C: .'., Thumper is not mortal.

Thoughts?

Well, I think that may be a little bit of a misrepresentation. The idea is that introspection (and other arguments) lets us know that the mind isn't composed of particles, or voltage. These things are inherently material properties, and they are things the mind/ soul simply doesn't have. Now, if the immaterial mental properties interact with material properties, you can show that the mind would have to be made out of particles, or have voltage ect... So, I only have to show that there are some properties that the mind would have to have, that it doesn't have, for interaction to occur, to rule out dualistic interaction. Basically:

P1: If there exists matter X that the mind interacts with, then the mind must have property Y
P2: The mind does not have property Y
C: Therefore, there does not exist matter X that the mind interacts with

You see, all you need to do is pin point one property that the mind would have to have, but doesn't have, to show that this interaction could not occur.

Also, lets say part of the mind is immaterial, but other part is material, then you have another interaction problem between the two! Thus, if you keep breaking it down, it can be shown than either materialism has to be true, or Idealism has to be true. Basically, either what we call the mental, really isn't immaterial and reduces to the material, or what we call the material, really isn't material and reduces to the mental. Dualism is simply false.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 9:31:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 9:05:31 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:15:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think it is true, or untrue?

I thought up a reply to what you've said about the interaction problem... So, assuming that things need similar properties to interact...

How do we know that the mind and body have completely different properties? It seems to be invalid reasoning to me.

P1: All material objects have property X.
P2: The mind is not material.
C: .'., the mind does not have property X.

But this is clearly a case of an invalid categorical syllogism. It's like saying...

P1: All men are mortal.
P1: My rabbit Thumper is not a man.
C: .'., Thumper is not mortal.

Thoughts?

Also, Johanan had this to say:

"The example with the voltage could in principle be generalized to any set of physical properties (including those defining atoms)... Since you can translate properties into each other with physics equations; having one shared property would imply ultimately having all shared properties." - Johanan Raatz

By properties, it is meant properties that only said thing could have. For example, only material things have voltage as properties, but material and immaterial things can have "existence" as a property, but "existence" isn't actually inherently material property, but could apply to anything. By material property, it is something only something material could have.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 10:23:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 4:37:51 PM, Yarowold wrote:
I think it's untrue.

If the mind and brain are two different entities, the mind being non-material, which process does it utilize to interact with materials, such as the brain?

The presupposed "emergent property of the gaps" is an argument from ignorance, nothing but an attempt to claim that the lack of information supports my presumptions and not yours"and that"s not a particularly convincing argument.

Most of what we know about the brain is physical and follows the laws of physics, which more or less, everything does. And as soon as measurements of the "mind" can be done, it would automatically become either a part of existing physics or added to it.

Theories that deny the immateriality of consciousness never seem to offer an argument or any evidence against dualistic alternatives. If a working hypothesis is one that is based on relevant evidence, then they are not even working hypotheses since there is no "evidence" for or against such "hypotheses". They tend to be phrased as if they were, but they are not scientific hypotheses.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 10:30:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 5:00:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:37:51 PM, Yarowold wrote:
I think it's untrue.

Me as well.


If the mind and brain are two different entities, the mind being non-material, which process does it utilize to interact with materials, such as the brain?

Well, I think an immaterial substance cannot interact with material substance.

Is this just an axiom of faith or is it based on some kind of reasoning?

This is why I deny material substances (and thus, Substance Dualism). As I believe the mind is immaterial.

There is surely nothing demonstrably false about recognizing that reality hosts two essentially different kinds of things; those that are mental and those that are physical. Two qualitatively distinct objects of knowledge raises an epistemic question, it"s a "leap of faith" to turn an epistemic question into an ontological conclusion, and it certainly doesn"t follow logically. One thing that is certain is that it doesn"t yield any measurable progress toward a fuller understanding.

Our state of conscious awareness is a feature that trumps all others in the matter of epistemic authority, to declare the experiential reality that mind and body do in fact interact to simply be impossible is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Do you have something more than a simple dogmatic assertion that it is impossible?

Most of what we know about the brain is physical and follows the laws of physics, which more or less, everything does. And as soon as measurements of the "mind" can be done, it would automatically become either a part of existing physics or added to it.

That is simply not true though. There are thought experiments to show that no matter how much we know about material things, and physical processes, we will never know everything about the mind or consciousness.

"Marry, the famous color blind neuroscientist, spends her entire life in a black and white room. She has never seen a color, but she knows everything there is to know about the neuroscience of color; the wave-length of light, the neurons that fire in response, the behavior that gives rise to it... She could tell you all about 'red' and 'green' and 'blue', but there is this one incredibly important thing about she just doesn't know. She doesn't know what it is like to see red, to see green.. She doesn't know about the conscious experience of red and green; all the brain science in the world isn't going to tell her that. Imagine one day she gets an operation, she leaves her room, and says 'ah, that's it, that is what it is like to see red!'... She has learned something new about consciousness." - David Chalmers (Cognitive Scientist and Philosopher of Mind)

So, the idea of physical facts being all there are is unlikely.

Also, "The Neural Binding Problem(s)" which was published in the Journal of Cognitive Neurodynamics in 2013, by Jerome Feldman (which was heavily peer-reviewed) shows that some important parts of the mind have to be immaterial:

According to the study:

"There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al., 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins, 2003) and there is no area that could encode the detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry."

So, the brain cannot even explain all of my mental states in principle. There are more arguments, but I am convinced the mind is immaterial. However, I believe that Substance Dualism is false because interaction between immaterial mental properties and material properties is logically incoherent. This is why I think Idealism is true.

The observed scientific evidence is overwhelming that mental events have neural correlates, and the experiential reality that we are conscious agents is starting point of all of our inquiries. I don"t really see how it makes any sense at all to take some contrived semantic parlor game that in effect, only declares that since we don"t understand it, it must be logically impossible, and therefore we must conclude that the material world has no ontological existence.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 11:00:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 4:15:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think it is true, or untrue?

I would argue that it is true or not true depending on how you define material. If "material" includes all material that we don't yet know, then the mind would be material, simply an unknown material (in my opinion).

I think the question is more along the lines of, is the mind a known material, or does it have unknown material to it? Dualism is basically the school of thought that it has unknown material to it. They call it immaterial, because they are referring to "material" as simply "known material."

Quantum entanglement and string theory may provide "new material" that the mind could be related to.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 11:25:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 9:23:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/4/2014 9:05:31 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:15:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think it is true, or untrue?

I thought up a reply to what you've said about the interaction problem... So, assuming that things need similar properties to interact...

How do we know that the mind and body have completely different properties? It seems to be invalid reasoning to me.

P1: All material objects have property X.
P2: The mind is not material.
C: .'., the mind does not have property X.

But this is clearly a case of an invalid categorical syllogism. It's like saying...

P1: All men are mortal.
P1: My rabbit Thumper is not a man.
C: .'., Thumper is not mortal.

Thoughts?

Well, I think that may be a little bit of a misrepresentation. The idea is that introspection (and other arguments) lets us know that the mind isn't composed of particles, or voltage. These things are inherently material properties, and they are things the mind/ soul simply doesn't have. Now, if the immaterial mental properties interact with material properties, you can show that the mind would have to be made out of particles, or have voltage ect... So, I only have to show that there are some properties that the mind would have to have, that it doesn't have, for interaction to occur, to rule out dualistic interaction. Basically:

P1: If there exists matter X that the mind interacts with, then the mind must have property Y
P2: The mind does not have property Y
C: Therefore, there does not exist matter X that the mind interacts with

You see, all you need to do is pin point one property that the mind would have to have, but doesn't have, to show that this interaction could not occur.

Also, lets say part of the mind is immaterial, but other part is material, then you have another interaction problem between the two! Thus, if you keep breaking it down, it can be shown than either materialism has to be true, or Idealism has to be true. Basically, either what we call the mental, really isn't immaterial and reduces to the material, or what we call the material, really isn't material and reduces to the mental.

Why should this be any more problematic than any other feature that renders anything the kind of thing it is?

Dualism is simply false.

This is simply a dogmatic assertion,

Rather than try to limit the reality thought of, perhaps what you should learn about is the limitations of our rational thought process.

The mental and the physical are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are mutually sustaining, reciprocal in their true nature. There is a , transactional relationship being described, you can"t have the one without the other.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 3:55:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 10:30:54 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/4/2014 5:00:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:37:51 PM, Yarowold wrote:
I think it's untrue.

Me as well.


If the mind and brain are two different entities, the mind being non-material, which process does it utilize to interact with materials, such as the brain?

Well, I think an immaterial substance cannot interact with material substance.

Is this just an axiom of faith or is it based on some kind of reasoning?

There is reasoning behind it. Zmikecuber knows it well, and that's who I was talking to, not you. There is no point in repeating my main argument just to talk to mike, as he already knows it. Just because I didn't have my argument in this thread, doesn't mean it is based on faith. Mike already knows what I am talking about.


This is why I deny material substances (and thus, Substance Dualism). As I believe the mind is immaterial.

There is surely nothing demonstrably false about recognizing that reality hosts two essentially different kinds of things; those that are mental and those that are physical.

Yes there is.

Two qualitatively distinct objects of knowledge raises an epistemic question, it"s a "leap of faith" to turn an epistemic question into an ontological conclusion, and it certainly doesn"t follow logically. One thing that is certain is that it doesn"t yield any measurable progress toward a fuller understanding.

No, it is ontologically contradictory for substance dualism to be true. As I explained in the other thread we were debating in.


Our state of conscious awareness is a feature that trumps all others in the matter of epistemic authority, to declare the experiential reality that mind and body do in fact interact to simply be impossible is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Do you have something more than a simple dogmatic assertion that it is impossible?

Yes. The mind is immaterial, and lacks material properties like "voltage", or "being made of particles". However, if the mind interacts with matter, then the mind has to have these properties. Since it doesn't have those properties. Interaction is impossible.


Most of what we know about the brain is physical and follows the laws of physics, which more or less, everything does. And as soon as measurements of the "mind" can be done, it would automatically become either a part of existing physics or added to it.

That is simply not true though. There are thought experiments to show that no matter how much we know about material things, and physical processes, we will never know everything about the mind or consciousness.

"Marry, the famous color blind neuroscientist, spends her entire life in a black and white room. She has never seen a color, but she knows everything there is to know about the neuroscience of color; the wave-length of light, the neurons that fire in response, the behavior that gives rise to it... She could tell you all about 'red' and 'green' and 'blue', but there is this one incredibly important thing about she just doesn't know. She doesn't know what it is like to see red, to see green.. She doesn't know about the conscious experience of red and green; all the brain science in the world isn't going to tell her that. Imagine one day she gets an operation, she leaves her room, and says 'ah, that's it, that is what it is like to see red!'... She has learned something new about consciousness." - David Chalmers (Cognitive Scientist and Philosopher of Mind)

So, the idea of physical facts being all there are is unlikely.

Also, "The Neural Binding Problem(s)" which was published in the Journal of Cognitive Neurodynamics in 2013, by Jerome Feldman (which was heavily peer-reviewed) shows that some important parts of the mind have to be immaterial:

According to the study:

"There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al., 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins, 2003) and there is no area that could encode the detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry."

So, the brain cannot even explain all of my mental states in principle. There are more arguments, but I am convinced the mind is immaterial. However, I believe that Substance Dualism is false because interaction between immaterial mental properties and material properties is logically incoherent. This is why I think Idealism is true.

The observed scientific evidence is overwhelming that mental events have neural correlates, and the experiential reality that we are conscious agents is starting point of all of our inquiries.

So?

I don"t really see how it makes any sense at all to take some contrived semantic parlor game that in effect, only declares that since we don"t understand it, it must be logically impossible, and therefore we must conclude that the material world has no ontological existence.

It isn't an argument from ignorance I am putting forward here. Nice straw-man. As I explained, interaction is actually impossible. You might as well say that saying a perfectly spherical cube is impossible is just an argument from ignorance. No. It is actually impossible.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 3:57:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/5/2014 11:25:08 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/4/2014 9:23:36 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/4/2014 9:05:31 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:15:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do you think it is true, or untrue?

I thought up a reply to what you've said about the interaction problem... So, assuming that things need similar properties to interact...

How do we know that the mind and body have completely different properties? It seems to be invalid reasoning to me.

P1: All material objects have property X.
P2: The mind is not material.
C: .'., the mind does not have property X.

But this is clearly a case of an invalid categorical syllogism. It's like saying...

P1: All men are mortal.
P1: My rabbit Thumper is not a man.
C: .'., Thumper is not mortal.

Thoughts?

Well, I think that may be a little bit of a misrepresentation. The idea is that introspection (and other arguments) lets us know that the mind isn't composed of particles, or voltage. These things are inherently material properties, and they are things the mind/ soul simply doesn't have. Now, if the immaterial mental properties interact with material properties, you can show that the mind would have to be made out of particles, or have voltage ect... So, I only have to show that there are some properties that the mind would have to have, that it doesn't have, for interaction to occur, to rule out dualistic interaction. Basically:

P1: If there exists matter X that the mind interacts with, then the mind must have property Y
P2: The mind does not have property Y
C: Therefore, there does not exist matter X that the mind interacts with

You see, all you need to do is pin point one property that the mind would have to have, but doesn't have, to show that this interaction could not occur.

Also, lets say part of the mind is immaterial, but other part is material, then you have another interaction problem between the two! Thus, if you keep breaking it down, it can be shown than either materialism has to be true, or Idealism has to be true. Basically, either what we call the mental, really isn't immaterial and reduces to the material, or what we call the material, really isn't material and reduces to the mental.

Why should this be any more problematic than any other feature that renders anything the kind of thing it is?

Dualism is simply false.

This is simply a dogmatic assertion,

No it is not. As I already argued, interaction is impossible. For it to be possible, the mind would have to have material properties that it doesn't have. Since it doesn't have these properties, it is not possible.


Rather than try to limit the reality thought of, perhaps what you should learn about is the limitations of our rational thought process.

The mental and the physical are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are mutually sustaining, reciprocal in their true nature. There is a , transactional relationship being described, you can"t have the one without the other.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 4:28:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 5:00:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:37:51 PM, Yarowold wrote:
I think it's untrue.

Me as well.


If the mind and brain are two different entities, the mind being non-material, which process does it utilize to interact with materials, such as the brain?

Well, I think an immaterial substance cannot interact with material substance. This is why I deny material substances (and thus, Substance Dualism). As I believe the mind is immaterial.


Most of what we know about the brain is physical and follows the laws of physics, which more or less, everything does. And as soon as measurements of the "mind" can be done, it would automatically become either a part of existing physics or added to it.

That is simply not true though. There are thought experiments to show that no matter how much we know about material things, and physical processes, we will never know everything about the mind or consciousness.

"Marry, the famous color blind neuroscientist, spends her entire life in a black and white room. She has never seen a color, but she knows everything there is to know about the neuroscience of color; the wave-length of light, the neurons that fire in response, the behavior that gives rise to it... She could tell you all about 'red' and 'green' and 'blue', but there is this one incredibly important thing about she just doesn't know. She doesn't know what it is like to see red, to see green.. She doesn't know about the conscious experience of red and green; all the brain science in the world isn't going to tell her that. Imagine one day she gets an operation, she leaves her room, and says 'ah, that's it, that is what it is like to see red!'... She has learned something new about consciousness." - David Chalmers (Cognitive Scientist and Philosopher of Mind)

So, the idea of physical facts being all there are is unlikely.

Also, "The Neural Binding Problem(s)" which was published in the Journal of Cognitive Neurodynamics in 2013, by Jerome Feldman (which was heavily peer-reviewed) shows that some important parts of the mind have to be immaterial:

According to the study:

"There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al., 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins, 2003) and there is no area that could encode the detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry."

So, the brain cannot even explain all of my mental states in principle. There are more arguments, but I am convinced the mind is immaterial. However, I believe that Substance Dualism is false because interaction between immaterial mental properties and material properties is logically incoherent. This is why I think Idealism is true.



Well, rationalthinker, It's my position that we have to stop thinking of the brain as the creator of consciousness. Rather what the brain does is it organizes consciousness and sentient qualia. Consciousness arises naturally from the interaction of matter, as does sentient qualia. In other words, consciousness is already present in Fields of Force to begin with (electric field, gravitational field [space-time]). What the brain does is it organizes consciousness and sentient qualia so that the information can be used by the organism, so that it can in term interact with the environment. In fact, a thing doesn't even require a brain to utilize the conscious experiences and sentient qualia to interact with the environment.

And I believe this is reflected in every material process in the universe. This is where Newtonian Mechanics comes from, I believe. Particles, rocks, collections of matter are constantly being instructed by their own conscious experiences and sentient qualia to perform physics. But what a higher organism's brain does do is it allows the organism to interpret a variety of data in the Field, to create images, and create complex sentient experiences, like the sense of smell, taste, touch, etc.

I believe that the brain does not create consciousness. Instead it organizes it; consciousness is naturally present in the stressed mechanical, elastic Field surrounding every particle in space.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 4:35:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think I've gone over this with you before, but I think consciousness and physics are inseparable.

Every physical cause in the universe is associated with a conscious experience (sentient qualia), so that a material body can in term perform an effect.

Consciousness and physical interactions cannot be separated from each other.

When a billiard ball collides with another billiard, the physics of elastic collisions tell us what the balls should do. But we should not confuse the physics for the explanation for why they do it.

The explanation is actually much deeper, and it has to due the conscious interactions between the two billiard balls.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 4:42:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
For example, when you, a material construct does something, you do it terms of sentient experiences, in terms of conscious thoughts and feelings. These motivate you. These are also complex conglomerations of rudimentary sentient qualia.

It's actually the sentient qualia that's telling you to do something. Though science understands the world of material interactions in terms of physics and chemistry, you yourself aren't thinking in terms of physics and chemistry when you swing your arms and pick up your legs, bite into a sandwich, and live your life.. You're actually being motivated - not by a list of equations - but by sentient experiences.

Well this applies to the entire universe as well, I believe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 4:43:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 4:28:38 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
At 2/4/2014 5:00:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/4/2014 4:37:51 PM, Yarowold wrote:
I think it's untrue.

Me as well.


If the mind and brain are two different entities, the mind being non-material, which process does it utilize to interact with materials, such as the brain?

Well, I think an immaterial substance cannot interact with material substance. This is why I deny material substances (and thus, Substance Dualism). As I believe the mind is immaterial.


Most of what we know about the brain is physical and follows the laws of physics, which more or less, everything does. And as soon as measurements of the "mind" can be done, it would automatically become either a part of existing physics or added to it.

That is simply not true though. There are thought experiments to show that no matter how much we know about material things, and physical processes, we will never know everything about the mind or consciousness.

"Marry, the famous color blind neuroscientist, spends her entire life in a black and white room. She has never seen a color, but she knows everything there is to know about the neuroscience of color; the wave-length of light, the neurons that fire in response, the behavior that gives rise to it... She could tell you all about 'red' and 'green' and 'blue', but there is this one incredibly important thing about she just doesn't know. She doesn't know what it is like to see red, to see green.. She doesn't know about the conscious experience of red and green; all the brain science in the world isn't going to tell her that. Imagine one day she gets an operation, she leaves her room, and says 'ah, that's it, that is what it is like to see red!'... She has learned something new about consciousness." - David Chalmers (Cognitive Scientist and Philosopher of Mind)

So, the idea of physical facts being all there are is unlikely.

Also, "The Neural Binding Problem(s)" which was published in the Journal of Cognitive Neurodynamics in 2013, by Jerome Feldman (which was heavily peer-reviewed) shows that some important parts of the mind have to be immaterial:

According to the study:

"There is now overwhelming biological and behavioral evidence that the brain contains no stable, high-resolution, full field representation of a visual scene, even though that is what we subjectively experience (Martinez-Conde et al., 2008). The structure of the primate visual system has been mapped in detail (Kaas and Collins, 2003) and there is no area that could encode the detailed information. The subjective experience is thus inconsistent with the neural circuitry."

So, the brain cannot even explain all of my mental states in principle. There are more arguments, but I am convinced the mind is immaterial. However, I believe that Substance Dualism is false because interaction between immaterial mental properties and material properties is logically incoherent. This is why I think Idealism is true.



Well, rationalthinker, It's my position that we have to stop thinking of the brain as the creator of consciousness. Rather what the brain does is it organizes consciousness and sentient qualia. Consciousness arises naturally from the interaction of matter, as does sentient qualia. In other words, consciousness is already present in Fields of Force to begin with (electric field, gravitational field [space-time]). What the brain does is it organizes consciousness and sentient qualia so that the information can be used by the organism, so that it can in term interact with the environment. In fact, a thing doesn't even require a brain to utilize the conscious experiences and sentient qualia to interact with the environment.

And I believe this is reflected in every material process in the universe. This is where Newtonian Mechanics comes from, I believe. Particles, rocks, collections of matter are constantly being instructed by their own conscious experiences and sentient qualia to perform physics. But what a higher organism's brain does do is it allows the organism to interpret a variety of data in the Field, to create images, and create complex sentient experiences, like the sense of smell, taste, touch, etc.

I believe that the brain does not create consciousness. Instead it organizes it; consciousness is naturally present in the stressed mechanical, elastic Field surrounding every particle in space.

Very interesting view. Thank you for sharing!
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 4:43:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Consciousness is inseparable from physical and chemical processes. Every physical action in the universe is always associated with a conscious, sentient experience!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 4:48:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 4:43:43 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Consciousness is inseparable from physical and chemical processes. Every physical action in the universe is always associated with a conscious, sentient experience!

What does this mean for reality as a whole? Is it one conscious being?
Fox-McCloud
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 4:57:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Untrue. I will do a debate on this topic in the near future.
Abortion Is Generally Morally Reprehensible: http://www.debate.org...

The instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves - Archibald Alison

Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven! - William Wordsworth
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:01:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 4:48:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/6/2014 4:43:43 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Consciousness is inseparable from physical and chemical processes. Every physical action in the universe is always associated with a conscious, sentient experience!

What does this mean for reality as a whole? Is it one conscious being?

Yes. It means that the universe is an enormous conscious organism, and it has the capacity to alter itself within apparent natural limitations, much like you can alter your body and rearrange your local environment ( something like this is also apparent with electrons around the nuclear of atoms ).

It also means that consciousness is layered. What this means is that, if consciousness is associated with physical forces ( like electricity, like magnetism, like gravity ) then conscious experiences should also have magnitudes that are proportional to the strength of the force at any given point in the universe.

You feel something called weight at Earth's surface, because of the effect of the Earth's gravity. This is the sentient experience provided by the local gravitation field and the normal force of the Earth's surface pushing up against your feet ( when you stand ). But if you where to go to the moon, you would feel lighter because the local gravitation field is weaker. The sentient experience provided by the moon's gravity is less in magnitude.

Of course gravity is a very weak force, and your body is constantly in communication with a much, much stronger force - electricity. And it's the electric fields surrounding every charged particle in your nervous system that provides you with the intimate world of sensations you are most familiar with.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:04:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This model is called hylopathic Mechanics.

A basic tenet that's been established is the following:

The strength of any force acting on any coordinate in the universe is associated with a sentient experience of a proportional magnitude.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:07:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As the strength of the force goes down, I's associated sentient experience decreases in magnitude proportionally, and in Newtonian mechanics that is associated with a decrease in an object's acceleration.

As the strength of the force goes up, it's associated sentient experience increases in magnitude proportionally, and in Newtonian mechanics this is associated with an increase in an object's acceleration.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:11:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So as you can see, sentient experiences are associated with forces, which in turn are associated with changes in a material body's acceleration.

More specific relationships have been established in interactions of charged particles.

I believe that sentient qualia comes in two basic types at the fundamental level of charged particle interaction: Pain and pleasure.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 5:18:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's a quote from something I wrote down about oppositely-charged particles some years ago, it sums it up pretty well:

What I'm suggesting is that particles, like humans, use a sensory language to perform the physics that they do, which I believe is binary (pleasure/pain) and regulates force-matter interaction depending on the mass and charge of the particle type. (I also believe the language has mechanical origins dealing with the stress components in an aether-like medium [space-time medium; whatever term you prefer], but the explanation for this will have to wait until I have it listed on its own post.)

Humans and their individual, intricate pieces always seem to obey physical laws, without exception. But, consciously, when humans interact with their environment, or "know" something is going on inside of them, they do so through sentience. We feel it (the environment or the event in our body), we taste it, smell it, see it or hear it. And these sensations are biased and motivational. That is to say, when we feel something very hot pressing against our leg, we pull the leg back. When we feel something enjoyable on our arm, we may keep it there to continue experiencing the sensation. When we taste something great and our stomaches are hungry, we are encouraged to eat it. When we taste something disgusting, we stop eating it and may even gag. When we listen to a charming sound, we may continue listening to it. When we hear a horrifically loud noise, we are encouraged to get away from it or find the source to turn it off. The same is true of sight or sound. There are pleasurable sensations and unpleasurable sensations (and also what appear to be neutral sensations) with each type of sense! Our senses are biased and motivate us to do something!

In the context of evolution, we say that the "bias" associated with these sensations is intended to keep us alive and somewhat healthy, as well as the other people in our living groups we care about. But this doesn't explain the origin of the sensations, only how they cooperate to keep us alive! (You see, the origin of the sensations would be physical and chemical; how and why they cooperate is a consequence of natural selection and evolution in an organism's historical evolutionary pathway.) But these sensations, when we experience them, make us respond a certain way (this is particularly true of newborn babies!)

Here's the important part:

Humans use the sensations they experience (sight, sound, taste, touch, smell) to interact with the environment. When they respond to physical and chemical stimuli (from the environment) humans experience it as a sentient experience (sensation) and respond accordingly, which is totally consistent with what is permitted in physical law. Thus the cause and effect each aware human action participates in is associated with sensation.

Well then, if humans are matter and an orchestra of forces working on it (and I'm assuming nothing more) then particles, too, operate according to the biased and motivational nature of sentient language . . . pleasure and displeasure, or "pleasure and pain"!

As we know from our own sentient human experiences, pleasure motivates the behaivor to continue, while pain encourages it not to.

This is it:

If humans are matter with an orchestra of forces working on it, and matter, like humans, uses a sentient pain and pleasure dichotomic language to perform physics, then:

when two particles of the same electric charge (but not necessarily the same electric magnitude) approach each other, their increasing repulsion is associated with an increasing sensation of pain (a discouraging sensation), which motivate the two particles to accelerate in the net opposite vector direction with respect to one another.

and when two particles of opposite electric charges (but not necessarily the same electric magnitude) approach each other, their increasing attraction is associated with an increasing sensation of pleasure (an encouraging sensation), which motivate the two particles to continue to accelerate toward each other.

This is the way a pain/pleasure dichotomic language would operate with charged particles in an electric field (Electric force interactions); it would also help explain some (if not all) of the biased and motivating nature observed with sentient experiences among organisms and why they're linked with physical and chemical activity. (Sentiency and force-interactions as inseperately coupled.)

My thinking is that a pain/pleasure dichotomic language should be associated with all force-interactions, for whatever force may be involved (with the possible exception of gravity, which may not be dichotomic), and that the magnitude of the force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the pleasure/plain sensation at the location in the field. Also, near-zero force magnitude in any field is associated with near-zero sensation (thus a preservation in inertia; [sensation, and thus consciousness, is only associated with changes in inertia. Sensation is associated with active forces]). Gravity, being the weakest force, would have the weakest sensation associated with it, and any fields of force experiencing near-zero-magnitudes would experience near-zero sensations.

I'm also suggesting that the known 5 human senses (and all the senses that exist in organisms) are reducible and can be unified into a single universal sense, that saturates the cosmos in all matter-force interactions, which, in this post, I'm refering to as a pain/pleasure dichotomic (or binary) language. (Though sight is associated with electro-magnetic radiation and not a field of force encompassing matter, and specifically deals with waves in an aether [spacetime] medium directly striking matter and creating a turbulent apparition on the particle being struck. [Color has already been shown to be associated with the frequency of electro-magnetic radiation with visible light, whereas brightness is associated with wave amplitude.] Nevertheless, the impact electro-magnetic radiation has on individual particles should still be experienced as either pleasure/pain, because of radiation's capacity to accelerate particles.)

This is my hylopathic hypothesis for matter-force interactions.

Particles interact with the world and speak a language that is the basis for all sentient experiences in complex biological organisms, as biological organisms are the particles that constitute them--and the language is physically expressed, without knowledge to the particles, as matter-force interactivity!
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 7:21:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, anyway, Rational thinker, there is a God and he's been communicating with me, my colleagues, and many, many other people these last few years with coincidences and experiences, in what I have interpreted to be validation of the theory. ( Though it could be wrong, I suppose. )

I'm frequently in a bad mood on this website because God's been forcing me to change my ways over the last few years, and sometimes it just brings out the hostility in me ( though I understand why I should change ).

No, I'm not a genius. In fact my grades at the university I attended weren't terrific. I simply dwell on a problem until it makes sense to me and I can provide an explanation.

But, yes, God's been communicating with you too ever sense you stopped being a firm atheist. The same thing happened to me, my partners, and many other people at the university I attended and elsewhere.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 9:55:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/6/2014 7:21:10 AM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Well, anyway, Rational thinker, there is a God and he's been communicating with me, my colleagues, and many, many other people these last few years with coincidences and experiences, in what I have interpreted to be validation of the theory. ( Though it could be wrong, I suppose. )

I'm frequently in a bad mood on this website because God's been forcing me to change my ways over the last few years, and sometimes it just brings out the hostility in me ( though I understand why I should change ).

No, I'm not a genius. In fact my grades at the university I attended weren't terrific. I simply dwell on a problem until it makes sense to me and I can provide an explanation.

But, yes, God's been communicating with you too ever sense you stopped being a firm atheist. The same thing happened to me, my partners, and many other people at the university I attended and elsewhere.

So, do you believe that everything is mental/ conscious, plus there is this other material reality that it interacts with. or, is even the "material reality" just mental as well?
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2014 10:00:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I believe that the second option you post there is true. Mental and material qualities are inseparable.

Now, we can manipulate language so that these two phenomena appear distinct and separated from each other. But I think this is semantic manipulation on our part, even if we don't know it.

I believe that mental qualities and material qualities cannot be separated from each other; my reason for this is that a specific deformation in the aether Field leads to a precise sentient experience that would not arise if the deformation was different.