• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dualism

Do you mean spirit/ body dualism, good god/ bad god dualism, or wave/ particle dualism?
 
Have you ever thought of explaining the context of your questions, or perhaps giving more information, or your own thoughts on the subject?
 
Car / speed dualism?
Gun / bang dualism?
Rock / hardness dualism?

Things have properties.

Anyone have any examples of a mind without a body?
Ever?
Just one?
If not, is there a reasonable probability that mind is a property of some bodies?
 
It's perfectly reasonable to think the "mind", as subjectively experienced, seems like a distinct experience from the apparently mindless activities of atoms and so on.

To me, that just suggests we're missing a key point of physics.

A "true" dualist would believe in either some kind of spirit (read: magical) world parallel to this one, where the mind exists and interfaces with the body somehow.

But there are others who think a spiritual world doesn't exist, but that the conscious mind arises somehow as an emergent property.

But that itself just breaks down into one of two properties:

A. Physics isn't fully understood

or

B. It's a spiritual world

I.e. Does this "emergent property" exist as some kind of magical thing arising solely from the data interaction of neurons, severed from the particles and energies that make up the real world?


That's the real question, and it seems it must be so, but also seems it cannot be so. Searle points out that, whatever else it is, consciousness as perceived subjectively is a real phenomena, and therefore must arise somehow via real-world physics (which may or may not be a massive extension to what we know now.)

Therefore, if you replaced neurons with electronics, or buckets and water and pulleys, the mind would lose consciousness, because, while electronics or buckets could duplicate all known data processing of the brain (in theory at least), it doesn't seem likely that those configurations of real world stuff would give rise to consciousness because they're nothing like long chain hydrocarbons in a cellular structure.
 
Beerina said:
It's perfectly reasonable to think the "mind", as subjectively experienced, seems like a distinct experience from the apparently mindless activities of atoms and so on.
Click to expand...
Is it? How do you know?
To me, that just suggests we're missing a key point of physics.
Click to expand...
Or several thousand steps in a hellishly complex process?
A "true" dualist would believe in either some kind of spirit (read: magical) world parallel to this one, where the mind exists and interfaces with the body somehow.

But there are others who think a spiritual world doesn't exist, but that the conscious mind arises somehow as an emergent property.
Click to expand...
It seems a reasonaably parsimonious view. All minds are associated with brains, therefore are probably a property of brains.
But that itself just breaks down into one of two properties:

A. Physics isn't fully understood
Click to expand...
Self evidently the case.
or

B. It's a spiritual world
Click to expand...
You lose me here. How do you conclude A and B are the only possibilities?
I.e. Does this "emergent property" exist as some kind of magical thing arising solely from the data interaction of neurons, severed from the particles and energies that make up the real world?
Click to expand...
Is the velocity of a car or the flight of an aircraft something "magical", independent of the hardware and physics giving rise to those effects?
That's the real question, and it seems it must be so, but also seems it cannot be so. Searle points out that, whatever else it is, consciousness as perceived subjectively is a real phenomena, and therefore must arise somehow via real-world physics (which may or may not be a massive extension to what we know now.)
Click to expand...
I don't feel we need a philosopher to point out that mind must arise from physics. If we believe otherwise, then all debate becomes pointless as we slip into fairyland.
Therefore, if you replaced neurons with electronics, or buckets and water and pulleys, the mind would lose consciousness, because, while electronics or buckets could duplicate all known data processing of the brain (in theory at least), it doesn't seem likely that those configurations of real world stuff would give rise to consciousness because they're nothing like long chain hydrocarbons in a cellular structure.
Click to expand...
Yet atoms and molecules in brains are replaced- and when replaced with the wrong molecules, awareness dies, suggesting that the correct molecules are indeed the cause of the effect. We see no evidence of intelligent crystals, buckets of water or pulleys. Computers emulate intelligent behaviour, but so far as I can see emulate only the complexity thereof.
All the evidence is consistent: brains produce awareness in humans and other animals.
 
Scazon said:
Do you mean spirit/ body dualism, good god/ bad god dualism, or wave/ particle dualism?
Click to expand...

Charge/mass, colour/shape, left leg/right leg?

I've been told that I'm a closet dualist. I presume that's even worse than a regular dualist.
 
Beerina said:
A "true" dualist would believe in either some kind of spirit (read: magical) world parallel to this one, where the mind exists and interfaces with the body somehow.

But there are others who think a spiritual world doesn't exist, but that the conscious mind arises somehow as an emergent property.
Click to expand...
Funny how you take issue with the second "somehow" even though we know quite about about it (even if we can't fully explain it yet), but you completely ignore the giant white elephant in the room regarding the first "somehow".

But that itself just breaks down into one of two properties:

A. Physics isn't fully understood

or

B. It's a spiritual world
Click to expand...
You're calling these "properties" but they sound more like explanations for the phenomenon of "mind" or "onciousness". As such, presenting them as the only two options sounds like a false dichotomy.

The brain is composed of atoms organized into molecules (some, as proteins, with multiple levels of organization themselves), organized into cells, organized into tissues, organized into other structures, etc., organized into the organ that is the brain.

Emergent properties arise at EVERY level of organization. We don't always know how or why (yet).

Since, as Soapy Sam pointed out above, there has never been any reliable evidence of a mind or consciousness not attached to a functioning brain, AND there is an extremely high degree of correlation between changes in the brain and brain function with changes in consciousness (drugs & alchohol, brain trauma, correlations between EEG and fMRI and specific mental activities, etc. etc.), it's a safe assumption that what we call "mind" or "consciousness" is an emergent property of the brain.


Therefore, if you replaced neurons with electronics, or buckets and water and pulleys, the mind would lose consciousness, because, while electronics or buckets could duplicate all known data processing of the brain (in theory at least), it doesn't seem likely that those configurations of real world stuff would give rise to consciousness because they're nothing like long chain hydrocarbons in a cellular structure.
Click to expand...
You're trying to make it a physics question. You're ignoring a great many higher levels of organization. It could be that the mind or consciousness could be reproduced with non-biological stuff. The phenomenon seems to depend on higher levels and great complexity of interconnections, not on any principle of physics.

In fact, I think you're barking up the wrong tree to think there is something inherently special about a neuron or the long chains of hydrocarbons you talk about.

The human brain is much much more complex than a collection of neurons.
 
Last edited:
Beerina, this just occurred to me because I'm repairing an old motorcycle right now.

In trying to repair the motorcycle, I'm looking to establish several emergent properties of the materials that comprise the thing (to get it running, to get it to power lights and signals, to get it to recharge the battery, etc.)

Would I do better to focus on the type of metals used in looking for this functionality, or to look at relationships of parts at higher levels of organization?

It needs a new voltage regulator/rectifier. For my purposes, I can completely forget about the atomic and molecular structures in the regulator. I can even forget about its internal components. I only need to think of it as a black box with exactly the properties--functions--that I need.

If you're looking for the emergent property of the brain that we call the mind, I suggest you leave off looking in molecules and even cells for it. Go to higher levels. We know for certain that some of the emergent properties that comprise the mind are located in specific brain structures and areas.
 
Dualism as a concept is one of the fundamental errors of human reasoning; the sooner we learn to operate without boxes and lines, the better.
 
Why does it seem to me the arguments about dualism here are...well...dualistic in nature?

It's as if there's no middle ground, no scenario or situation in which perceiving opposites might be helpful, lay groundwork, or act as a jumping-off point.

If the arguments are of a "dualism is either right or wrong, black or white, in or out" nature, then aren't you using dualism to make these arguments?


..pondering, she leaves.
 
It does seem to be a discrete situation. Perhaps you could suggest a way of having a little bit of a ghost- based mind operating in a material body?

Or perhaps we could argue whether a computer program is spiritual? After all, when it's running, the 1's and 0's have no mass, they are merely "states" so are they things or not?
 
Scazon said:
It does seem to be a discrete situation. Perhaps you could suggest a way of having a little bit of a ghost- based mind operating in a material body?

Or perhaps we could argue whether a computer program is spiritual? After all, when it's running, the 1's and 0's have no mass, they are merely "states" so are they things or not?
Click to expand...

The computer running the program consists of transistor switches that are on or off, though. There is nothing spiritual about that.

Leon
 
Mystical, maybe. Did you ever use Windows ME?

JoeTheJuggler said:
Beerina, this just occurred to me because I'm repairing an old motorcycle right now.
Click to expand...

You know, you might write a book about this...you might call it...no, no. It's gone.
 
HypnoPsi said:
As an amaterialist, it is for me. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for any ultimate prima materia substance at all.

HypnoPsi
Click to expand...

Yes if you ignore everything -- including the definition of "evidence" -- there is no evidence at all.

Now, if you will excuse me, I am going to go jump out of a window in order to taste chocolate. Who ca236jd skkkkhgiei19968 798103 ============= * * . .^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom