The Interaction problem and Dualism

Author: Solaris1

Posts

Total: 103
#61
DebateAllDaTings
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 78
0
1
2
DebateAllDaTings's avatar
DebateAllDaTings
0
1
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Science would certainly still be valid if Philosophical Idealism were true,  I agree.

It would just be false that Scientific Realism is true, and Scientific Instrumentalism would have to be assumed.

The issue I am simply acknowledging is that no experiment involving *seemingly physical* objects can actually demonstrate the *objective reality* of physical objects.


#62
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,299
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
I just did *what seemed to be* subbing my toe on a wall, it hurt. 
Good, welcome to the real world ---real estate---   aka occupied space, that is specifically composed of fermionic matter and bosonic forces PING! OUCH! Etc.

Didnt the doctor slap you ass when mom popped you out?

Does that prove physical toes and physical walls exist objectively outside of mentality? Of course not, that's silly.
Its called the first step scientific experi-mental- { see the word -mental- }, The only silly is  your philsophical mind loops your stuck in. Maybe 3Ru can help you get unstuck, as, I can lead a horse to truth......
I can stub my toe on a wall in a dream too, that doesn't mean my dream toes and dream wall actually exist. 
Come back and talk to me when you learn the differrence between dreaming and awaken consciousness. Silly

Hallucinations and Dreams prove that the mind can trick you into thinking their are physical objects when there are none. No amount of apparent hammers  could ever prove objectively physical objects exist as they could be mental projections just like a dream hammer is.

The only trick going on while you type to me, is your playing Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts/ego based philosophical games with your self, sort of like mental masturbation.  Hey, whatever floats your boat or cranks your tractor.



#63
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,299
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@DebateAllDaTings
*seemingly physical*
Yeah I seemingly stubbed my toe and seemingly felt pain, tho not really, it was just a  reoccurring dream Ive been having ever since my momma popped me out and when doctor went to slap me on the ass, he missed.

Dumb-ass doctor thought he was seemingly in a dream til  my toe stuck him in the his right eyeball.   After that he really went after my ass, big time.

I was seemingly crying for about an hour, till seemingly had this nipple like thing in my seemingly open mouth.  Yeah I seemingly enjoyed that nipple for about hour.

8 days later

#64
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@semperfortis
Devil's advocate would render this a less parsimonious ontology relative to a rendition of Solipsism wherein the body is reducible to the mental. In such a case, only the mind exists and therefore does not interact with any unique substance. The Dualist or any subclass must first demonstrate the existence of an external substance via a priori or a posteriori proof for the discussion of interaction to be discussed.

I would say it is not easy, or currently possible, to demonstrate,
Well stated.

#65
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias

in lak'esh ala k'in
#66
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,299
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL

A Puppet On String
.....ebuc.....

A puppet on string,
Dangles and dances,
Controlled by the master, ---cause, effect, resultant determinism---
It bows and prances.

Free from hard choices,
Free from minds will,
Free from pregnancy
Free from the pill.

Oh to be a puppet,
A puppet is free,
Free from decisions,
It smiles with glee.

My puppet is attentive,
My puppet is smart,
It lives in a container,
It does not fart.

A puppet on string,
A wooden delight,
No weight problems,
And reflects all light.

Meta-space and  occupied eternally complement each other.

The photonic Meta-space sine-wave /\/\/  pops in ---invaginates---  and out of occupied space Gravity and Dark Energy ...(><)(><).... and instrumentally we observe it .....(>*<)(>*<)......  ergo consciousness/awareness/otherness/twoness occurs in many variations/ways.

Bilateral consciousness *  *  is most complex locally. Universe/God is most complex wholistically, and its only reference point is the local parts that compose its occupied space existence.

..............outer peak of Gravitational (  ) postive geodesic existence...............
-
-
.................higher peak of invagination from Gravity. inside the tube...........

.............lower peak of  sine-wave via invagination from Dark Energy..........
-
-
...................inner peak of Dark Energy  )( negative geodesic existence.........

LINK to positive and negative curvature of a torus

outer numerical...............1.....5p-7p..... 11p-13p.... 17p-19p.... 23p-(25)
-
-
inside higher numerical 0..........6.....12..........18.............
inside lower numerical.... ....3........9.......15........21........
-
-
inner numerical............... 2-4......8-10....14-16......20-24..

Naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed, eternally.



#67
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,148
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc

There is an emerging consensus that current evidence supports attributing some form of consciousness to other mammals, birds, and at least some cephalopod molluscs (octopuses, squid, cuttlefish).
#68
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,299
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
There is an emerging consensus that current evidence supports attributing some form of consciousness to other mammals, birds, and at least some cephalopod molluscs (octopuses, squid, cuttlefish).
Finally glad others catching on to what Ive been stating for 25 years or more.

Maybe next the realize that humans have the most access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego.

Maybe not and either way, would it really make any differrence for pathway humanity appears to be headed on? I dont think, so, tho there is always hope. Or is there? Hope is like enlightenment, it comes and go minute by minute, day by day etc.



#69
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,299
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Solaris1
1-The mind and body are two separate substances, and have no shared properties
False. Meta-space mind is not an occupied space substance i.e. access to Meta-space mind/intelligence/concepts and ego,  is a resultant of occupied space nervous system consciousness, and primarily with humans, and other animals to some degree.

The cosmic laws and principles of Universe are not written in the sky or outer space etc, they exist as Meta-space mind, that humans have most access to.

There is 1} Meta-space mind, 2} truly non-occupied space, and 3} occupied space.

A conceptual ----line-of-demarcation---- exists between 1 and 2 - 3

I had a new thought yesterday.  Since occupied space is naught created nor lost, only transformed, what if the exact Universe scenario we live in now, reoccurs every 10^9999 light years, i.e. say when we die, 10^999 light years we awaken again to the exact same scenario of life we have been living.

This is reincarnation of Universe, but in the exact same sequence set of events we are experiencing now.  Why is that not possible with a finite set of parameters ex finite set of laws and principles?    Is that possible?  If no possible then why?

Sure Lee Smolins book on black holes, he suggest various rebirths of Universe via black holes with variant cosmic laws and principles, tho I disagree with that assessment as I see that leading to infinite set of possibilities and that lacks integrity i.e.  infinity lacks wholistic structural and systemic operational abilities.




#70
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I suspect that there's more to this meme than God's being the puppet master.

#71
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
I suspect that there's more to this meme than God's being the puppet master.
MONISM
#72
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
MONISM
No objections, here.

11 days later

#73
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,059
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Solaris1
The interaction problem is a supposed problem for Dualism, the view of the mind that humans have two parts, an immaterial mind and the body
 
As you said, it’s a “supposed” problem, and it’s always struck me as a “contrived” matter of semantics with no logical basis.
 
I will state it as it follows:
 
1-The mind and body are two separate substances, and have no shared properties
 
It’s typically represented in this way, which is actually a self-refuting statement more about semantics than philosophy.  To start with the premise that mind and body exist as two “substances” obfuscates the issue at best, and in fact, it contends that they share the property of “existing as a substance”. 
 
2-two substances need one shared property to interact
 
The argument just dogmatically states that something we know to occur is metaphysically impossible, which isn’t an argument, it has no logical basis, .  The experiential fact of the matter is that mind and body do interact, the fact that we don’t understand how that occurs certainly doesn’t mean that it is impossible. 
 
3-the mind and body cannot interact
 
However, the mind and body do clearly act. Whether you are a materialistic, Idealist or whatever, you most likely belief that your thoughts cause your actions. You need to drop either one or two. 
 
Two can be supported by the fact it has wide confirmation: a hammer and a nail have the property of being physical, and ideas that interact with each other have the property of being ideas. 
 
Two is widely “asserted”, but it always appears to be presupposed without being established logically, that does not constitute “confirmation”. The attempt to deny the self-evident experiential reality of the interaction between mind and body, and the associated fact that mentally, we are causal agents, is a very extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The unfounded and completely faith-based belief that the observed facts of the matter are metaphysically impossible doesn’t constitute extraordinary evidence by any stretch of the imagination.

Neither 1 or 2 are valid, and consequently, 3 does not logically follow.
#74
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,059
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
In  J.J.C Smart’s “Sensations and Brain Processes”, he explores the relationship between the mind and body, specifically delving into the shortcomings of the theory of Dualism. In the work of Paul Churchland, Dualism distinguishes the mind from the body, categorizing consciousness as unable to be investigated by empirical science.

People who oppose dualism usually use a convenient definition of Dualism that suits their purposes, while this allows folks like Smart and Churchland to feel they have made their case, in the end, Dualists don’t believe in the Dualism that they don’t believe in either.
 
Within this school of thought are a variety of sub-theories such Substance Dualism, Popular Dualism, and Property Dualism. Smart however, asserts that “there are no philosophical arguments which compel us to be dualists”. 

Yeah, metaphysics is like that, there are no philosophical arguments that compel against Dualism either.  While the Dualism conclusion in not logically coercive, it does provide an intellectually satisfying way of making sense of the experiential reality of human consciousness.
In other words, Smart fails to see the logical reasoning behind Dualism, and instead proposes his Identity Theory of the Mind. Under this school of thought, while there is a slight distinction between mental states and brain processes, there are no non-physical properties. Although the physical properties may be vague or difficult to comprehend, they are still all physical properties.

Simply asserting that there are no non-physical properties isn’t an argument.

In his attack on Churchland’s notion of Dualism, Smart states: “[the idea] that everything should be explicable in terms of physics except the occurrence of sensations seems to me to be frankly unbelievable” .  Smart does not see why sensations should be granted such scientific leniency. His Identity Theory of Mind highlights the failure of Dualists to explain why sensations are not subjected to the same logical scientific expectations.

Smart and Churchland both reject Dualism, I’m not sure how refuting Churchland translates into a refutation of Dualism. 

However, Smart does spend considerable time grappling with the notion of sensations. He uses the example of pain to ultimately highlight the nuances between a mental state and a brain process. An ache is a “report of a brain process”, but it is not the same as the sensation of feeling pain . Thus, his thesis does not state that a sensation can be directly translated into a brain process, but does explain that the two are inextricably correlated. Sensations and mental states can exist, just as by-products of specific brain processes.

How exactly does “sensations are a byproduct of brain processes” follow from “sensations cannot be translated into a brain process, once again, the argument against Dualism appears to be “presupposed” without being established logically.

Contrary to the assertions of those who refute Dualism, most Dualists do actually have an argument, I’ll provide my argument for Dualism next.
#75
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,148
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker

How do you explain General Anesthesia?
#76
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,148
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Sidewalker
Although the science of brain cell communication is well-understood, the complexity of thought processes is not well-defined. However, exploring the brain may help in understanding the bigger picture.
The brain is primarily composed of neurons, which are cells that generate electrical impulses for communication. It is estimated that the human brain has close to 100 billion neurons.
Neurons release brain chemicals, known as neurotransmitters, which generate these electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation.
#77
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,059
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
My Argument in Support of Dualism

On a material level, Consciousness represents a supervenient structure that bears properties that its subvenient parts do not exhibit.  Consciousness is not coextensive with brain, it exists independently of material brain as a higher order structure that cannot be decomposed into its parts and their relationships, so it is an ontologically novel entity. It exists independently of the physical materials and properties of its parts and yet, exerts causal influence on events in the world, exerting a causal influence that its constituent components, in sum, cannot exert.  Consequently, it has an ontological status apart from its material components, and it logically follows that it is itself a causal agent as well as an entity that is acted upon by external causes.

Consciousness has causal influence due to its content, not solely because of the physical aspects of its neural correlates. A continuous conscious state includes desires or intentions, it includes the ability to envision a future state and establish a strategy for attaining that state. That makes it more than a purely physical state, it is a conscious state with reference to a future possibility, and no such reference is part of any purely physical state.  The self has the ability to exert the force of consciousness to some effect in the material world; such conscious states can have causal effect to bring about further states for the sake of values and purposes.  Intents, values, and purposes are not reducible to a purely physical state unless one attributes consciousness to the constituent matter itself; consequently they exist as properties of a consciousness which clearly entails a distinct ontological existence apart from its constituent material components.
#78
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,059
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Although the science of brain cell communication is well-understood, the complexity of thought processes is not well-defined. However, exploring the brain may help in understanding the bigger picture.
The brain is primarily composed of neurons, which are cells that generate electrical impulses for communication. It is estimated that the human brain has close to 100 billion neurons.
Neurons release brain chemicals, known as neurotransmitters, which generate these electrical signals in neighboring neurons. The electrical signals propagate like a wave to thousands of neurons, which leads to thought formation.

This is “descriptive” of the physical brain process rather than explanatory, and it does not indicate whether this mechanistic description is cause or effect.  Does this physical process drive the thought, or does the thought drive the physical process.  You expressed your ideas here, isn’t this also descriptive of the process by which those ideas translated onto the action of typing this post? 

The overriding mechanistic description is conceptually inadequate, this kind of apriori commitment to materialist presuppositions, reductionist thinking and mechanistic explanations are counterproductive to understanding consciousness.

45 days later

#79
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,059
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
How do you explain General Anesthesia?
General anesthesia can put a person into an unconscious state, so can sleep, how does that relate to the question of mind being a causal agent?
 
The very process by which physicalism translates qualitative experiences into measurable quantities that do not themselves exhibit the qualitative constituents of experience, fundamentally changes the subject matter of the investigation such that the resultant account of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.
 
How do you solve the “hard problem” of consciousness?

#80
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
How do you define the “hard problem” of consciousness ?
#81
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,059
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you define the “hard problem” of consciousness ?
If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious?  Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?
#82
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
How do you define the “hard problem” of consciousness ?
If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious?  Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?
how can an insect interact with its environment ?

how can a robot interact with its environment ?

what you call "consciousness" is simply a natural progression of data processing
#83
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,059
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you define the “hard problem” of consciousness ?
If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious?  Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?
how can an insect interact with its environment ?
Why wouldn't they?

how can a robot interact with its environment ?
You think robots are conscious beings that are having an experience?  Please explain.

what you call "consciousness" is simply a natural progression of data processing
Data processing implies program, who or what does the programmiing.  Where does this data processing take place.

At what point in the "natural progression" does a miracle happen and viola, "consciousness"?
#84
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
what you call "consciousness" is simply a natural progression of data processing
Data processing implies program, who or what does the programmiing.  Where does this data processing take place.

At what point in the "natural progression" does a miracle happen and viola, "consciousness"?
does a dragonfly have "consciousness" ?

does an eagle have "consciousness" ?

what about an ape ?

maybe a dog ?

does an infant human have "consciousness" ?
#85
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,059
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
what you call "consciousness" is simply a natural progression of data processing
Data processing implies program, who or what does the programmiing.  Where does this data processing take place.

At what point in the "natural progression" does a miracle happen and viola, "consciousness"?
does a dragonfly have "consciousness" ?

does an eagle have "consciousness" ?

what about an ape ?

maybe a dog ?

does an infant human have "consciousness" ?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Now, do you think asking questions in some way answers questions?
#86
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
--> @3RU7AL
How do you define the “hard problem” of consciousness ?
If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious?  Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?
For the brain to process a stimulus it has to be conscious and tuned in with the five senses. Touch, smell, taste etc.
Experience In a different sense  refers not to conscious events themselves but to the knowledge and practical familiarity they bring with them.[



#87
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,059
3
2
4
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
4
-->
@Shila
If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious?  Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?
For the brain to process a stimulus it has to be conscious and tuned in with the five senses. Touch, smell, taste etc.
Experience In a different sense  refers not to conscious events themselves but to the knowledge and practical familiarity they bring with them.[
For there to be an experience, there needs to be an experiencer, consciousness is the conceptual space within which we find the experieence, it's the entity that experiences, no consciousness, no experience, no consciousness, no knowlege.
#88
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
--> @Shila
If you ascribe to physicalism, why is a physical state conscious?  Why (and how) are physical processes accompanied by experience?
For the brain to process a stimulus it has to be conscious and tuned in with the five senses. Touch, smell, taste etc.
Experience In a different sense  refers not to conscious events themselves but to the knowledge and practical familiarity they bring with them.[
For there to be an experience, there needs to be an experiencer, consciousness is the conceptual space within which we find the experieence, it's the entity that experiences, no consciousness, no experience, no consciousness, no knowlege.
Experience is what has been stored in the brain as memory of that event as well as the ability of the brain to recall that event or feeling or knowledge.
Under hypnosis patients can recall past experiences despite being in a trance-like state(semi conscious).

#89
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,551
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Now, do you think asking questions in some way answers questions?
what makes you think a dragonfly has "consciousness" ?
#90
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,740
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Sidewalker
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Now, do you think asking questions in some way answers questions?
what makes you think a dragonfly has "consciousness" ?

Consciousness, via volitional action, increases the likelihood that an organism will direct its attention, and ultimately its movements, to whatever is most important for its survival and reproduction.