What did Haldane mean?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

J.B.S. Haldane said, in his essay "When I Am Dead":

It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.

What was he saying here? First of all, my mental processes clearly are not determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain. That is, if we take wholly to mean "completely, to the exclusion of other things."

More importantly, what good does it do him to postulate some immaterial thing that has an affect on his thoughts? How does this immaterial thing eliminate the need to suppose that my beliefs are true? Is he suggesting that the immaterial thing is, by definition, a thing that puts true thoughts in my mind?

Does his statement amount to anything more than "I want to believe my thoughts are true, so I will assume they are true"?

~~ Paul

 

[Mephisto]

J.B.S. Haldane said, in his essay "When I Am Dead":

What was he saying here? First of all, my mental processes clearly are not determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain. That is, if we take wholly to mean "completely, to the exclusion of other things."

More importantly, what good does it do him to postulate some immaterial thing that has an affect on his thoughts? How does this immaterial thing eliminate the need to suppose that my beliefs are true? Is he suggesting that the immaterial thing is, by definition, a thing that puts true thoughts in my mind?

Does his statement amount to anything more than "I want to believe my thoughts are true, so I will assume they are true"?

~~ Paul

Paul, I don't think this is necessarily your answer, but Aldus Huxley (The Doors of Perception) asserted that the brain is essentially a filtering organ that allows through only those things we need to survive on this planet.

He believed that we are, at any time, capable of knowing everything there is to know, but that the deluge of unnecessary information would account for a data overload and could likely be detrimental to the organism (us).

Of course, this doesn't account for "the flight of imagination," but some (even Einstein) believed that the mental states in which intuition and imagination (meditation, daydreaming?) are best done are those which allow a glimpse into the nature of the universe. Essentially, the brain is taking a back-seat to the mind.

Hope that was at least somewhat helpful.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But clearly we have gone past accepting only the information that we need to survive. Searching for a testable hypothesis for M-theory is beyond the needs of basic survival.

~~ Paul

 

[lumos]

It sounds like he is saying that he simply cannot fathom or understand how the brain works, so he must have a soul.

Goddidit!

 

[jmercer]

Sounds more to me like he's supporting duality.

 

[hammegk]

Or that idealism makes better, more logical, sense than does physicalism.

 

[Wudang]

Sounds like the old "failure of imagination". I cannot imagine how simple chemical reactions can give rise to logically correct thoughts therefore there must be another factor at play. This factor is assumed to be spooky rather than that the situation is a little more complex than he might at first imagine.

 

[hodgy]

The premise upon which he bases the rest of his argument is

They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically.

So what? Neither does it make them necessarily unsound. My computer is perfectly capable of logic and valid operations despite having no soul. The conclusions he proceeds to draw are irrelevant.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hammegk said:
Or that idealism makes better, more logical, sense than does physicalism.

In what way would idealism guarantee the accuracy of my thoughts?

hodgy said:
So what? Neither does it make them necessarily unsound. My computer is perfectly capable of logic and valid operations despite having no soul. The conclusions he proceeds to draw are irrelevant.

But perhaps your computer is only logical relative to your expectation of logic, which might be incorrect because it's only based on the movement of atoms. Or something like that.

I just don't understand how tossing in extra junk alleviates the discomfort.

~~ Paul

 

[Meadmaker]

J.First of all, my mental processes clearly are not determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain. That is, if we take wholly to mean "completely, to the exclusion of other things."

To understand, you have to realize that what you have "clearly" observed is not so clear to a lot of people. Many people on this board believe that your mental processes are indeed determined completely, to the exclusion of other things, by the motions of the atoms in your brain.

To a materialist, that's it. That's all there is.


For my part, I used to believe that as well, but now I am not so sure.



Haldane is pointing out that there is no particular reason to believe that the materialist premise is true, because if it were true, how would you know? Assume it is true. Your conclusion that it is indeed true is no more rational than the conclusion of the person next to you that it is false. In each case, the atoms of your brain are dictating that you reach a particular conclusion, independent of the logic of that position.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Meadmaker said:
To understand, you have to realize that what you have "clearly" observed is not so clear to a lot of people. Many people on this board believe that your mental processes are indeed determined completely, to the exclusion of other things, by the motions of the atoms in your brain.

No one believes that.

To a materialist, that's it. That's all there is.

Oh, I getcha. I am a "materialist." But what I think is not wholly determined by the atoms in my brain. It's also determined by the atoms outside my brain. I have senses.

Haldane is pointing out that there is no particular reason to believe that the materialist premise is true, because if it were true, how would you know? Assume it is true. Your conclusion that it is indeed true is no more rational than the conclusion of the person next to you that it is false. In each case, the atoms of your brain are dictating that you reach a particular conclusion, independent of the logic of that position.

That's why ontological materialism, and ontology in general, is silly. There is no way to know what really exists. However, why assume that my conclusions are "independent of the logic of that position"? What the atoms of my brain and environment dictate might be precisely based on the logic of the situation, since the atoms are part of the situation.

Why does adding extra stuff make Haldane feel better?

~~ Paul

 

[hodgy]

But perhaps your computer is only logical relative to your expectation of logic, which might be incorrect because it's only based on the movement of atoms. Or something like that.

I was trying to make the same point as your later post in a sort of roundabout way. Haldane's conclusion does not logically arise out of his premise and is self-defeating.

If he assumes that he must have a soul because he is capable of logic then what about the computer? Not from my point of view but from his - he is trying to use the veracity of his logical capabilities to 'prove' he must have a soul. So, what about the computer (or in fact, any physical system)?

 

[69dodge]

Re: Re: What did Haldane mean?

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Haldane is pointing out that there is no particular reason to believe that the materialist premise is true, because if it were true, how would you know? Assume it is true. Your conclusion that it is indeed true is no more rational than the conclusion of the person next to you that it is false. In each case, the atoms of your brain are dictating that you reach a particular conclusion, independent of the logic of that position.

But if it's true and I believe it's true, then what's the problem? There's only a problem if it's false and I believe it's true.

That's what I think, anyway. Haldane apparently is not satisfied with believing what's true. He wants to believe it for the right reason too. I'm not even sure what that means exactly, but that seems to be the jist of his argument: "I'm sure I reason correctly, and furthermore I'm sure I have a good reason for believing that I reason correctly. Now, how could the world work, to make those assumptions true?" Maybe they're not true.

If materialism tries to give a detailed account of how the brain reasons, while idealism just says, "we have minds, which somehow are guaranteed to reason correctly", idealism hasn't actually solved the problem; it's just postulated it away.

 

[jmercer]

If he assumes that he must have a soul because he is capable of logic then what about the computer? Not from my point of view but from his - he is trying to use the veracity of his logical capabilities to 'prove' he must have a soul. So, what about the computer (or in fact, any physical system)?

I'd like to make a brief appeal here... please, please, PLEASE don't bring computers into the discussion. Comparing a human brain to a computer is a waste of time and effort until there are self-aware computers capable of making independent decisions.

Pretty please?

 

[IllegalArgument]

I'd like to make a brief appeal here... please, please, PLEASE don't bring computers into the discussion. Comparing a human brain to a computer is a waste of time and effort until there are self-aware computers capable of making independent decisions.

Pretty please?

I'm going ignore your plea indirectly.

What is an independent decision? If you could magically see and understand the firing of every neuro in a person at the time of a decision.

Could you not determine why they made that decision, based on their current enviroment and past history? Would that decision be independent?

I'm really not trying to nitpick, I want to understand in what context, you are describing, that a decision is independent.

 

[jmercer]

I'm going ignore your plea indirectly.

What is an independent decision? If you could magically see and understand the firing of every neuro in a person at the time of a decision.

Could you not determine why they made that decision, based on their current enviroment and past history? Would that decision be independent?

I'm really not trying to nitpick, I want to understand in what context, you are describing, that a decision is independent.

In a computer, decisions are inherently limited and only incorporate objective factors in taking logic branches. In a brain, decisions are not necesssarily limited by inherent factors and may be influenced by both objective and subjective factors.

Worse, computers are consciously designed to specific parameters - humans are not. We're the product of evolution.

 

[IllegalArgument]

In a computer, decisions are inherently limited and only incorporate objective factors in taking logic branches. In a brain, decisions are not necesssarily limited by inherent factors and may be influenced by both objective and subjective factors.

Worse, computers are consciously designed to specific parameters - humans are not. We're the product of evolution.

Humans did have survive within certain enviromental parameters, obviously not designed parameteres. We are only taking in a limited set of inputs, again not designed.

Unlike computers, we can form new logic branches, as you said, and we can over time in the spieces level, alter our hardware.

I'm taking the radical behaviorist, or at least my limited understanding of it, approach to the question posed at the top.

I think that a "independent decision", is really a product of a person's history, current enviroment and genetics. I think Haldane was arguing for free will, a concept I'm rather dubious of right now.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hello Paul

Seems pretty obvious what he meant from the rest of the essay...

http://members.aol.com/BevinSoc/Haldane.htm

In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter. But as regards my own very finite and imperfect mind, I can see, by studying the effects on it of drugs, alcohol, disease, and so on, that. its limitations are largely at least due to my body.

Without that body it may perish altogether, but it seems to me quite a probable that it will lose its limitations and be merged into an infinite mind or something analogous to a mind which I have reason to suspect probably exists behind nature. How this might be accomplished I have no idea.

But I notice that when I think logically and scientifically or act morally my thoughts and actions cease to be characteristic of myself, and are those of an intelligent or moral being in the same position; in fact, I am already identifying my mind with an absolute or unconditioned mind.

Only in as far as I do this can I see any probability of my survival, and the more I do the less I am interested in my private affairs and the less desire do I feel for personal immortality. The belief in my own eternity seems to me indeed to be a piece of unwarranted self-glorification, and he desire for it a gross concession to selfishness.

In so far as I set my heart on things that will not perish with me, I automatically remove the sting from my death. I am far more interested in the problems of biochemistry than in the question of what, if anything, will happen to me when I am dead.

Until this attitude is more general the later question will remain too charged with emotion to make a scientific investigation of it possible. And until such at investigation is possible a man who is honest with him self can only answer, 'I do not know.'

Paul posted:

What was he saying here? First of all, my mental processes clearly are not determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain. That is, if we take wholly to mean "completely, to the exclusion of other things."

He means that part of his mind is connected to "an infinite mind or something analogous to a mind which I have reason to suspect probably exists behind nature."

Sounds familiar. "Atman = Brahman" sort of idea?

More importantly, what good does it do him to postulate some immaterial thing that has an affect on his thoughts? How does this immaterial thing eliminate the need to suppose that my beliefs are true? Is he suggesting that the immaterial thing is, by definition, a thing that puts true thoughts in my mind?

I don't think so, know. He's not that specific about it.

Does his statement amount to anything more than "I want to believe my thoughts are true, so I will assume they are true"?

Judging by the general tenor of the essay, I don't think so. I think the key words are "an infinite mind or something analogous to a mind which I have reason to suspect probably exists behind nature." He doesn't give his reasons, so I suspect he is suggesting that those reasons aren't specified in the essay, but are dependent on other factors.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Geoff, when I said,

What was he saying here? First of all, my mental processes clearly are not determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain. That is, if we take wholly to mean "completely, to the exclusion of other things."

I was giving my opinion, not suggesting what he was saying. My thoughts are not determined wholly by atoms in my brain, but also by atoms elsewhere. Perhaps he meant to say:

For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in the universe I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true.

or some such thing.

Then he said:

Without that body it may perish altogether, but it seems to me quite a probable that it will lose its limitations and be merged into an infinite mind or something analogous to a mind which I have reason to suspect probably exists behind nature. How this might be accomplished I have no idea.

Sounds like wishful thinking. And, again, why should he suppose that this infinite mind is capable of improving the situation with respect to the truth of his thoughts?

~~ Paul

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Haldane apparently is not satisfied with believing what's true. He wants to believe it for the right reason too.

This harks back to some of the recent Penrose/Gödel discussions. Penrose proposes that the space of all mathematical propositions includes some which, though true, are not guaranteed to be reachable from another given location by any finite series of logical steps.