NationStates Jolt Archive

Which view do you take of the mind-body problem?

I don't mind my body, so I have no problem

My solution to the mind-body problem is mindless destruction of bodies.

To be serious, physicalism seems more logical to me than dualism. I don't see a reason to believe in the existance of a separate substance for minds unless there is rather a lot of evidence, and subjective idealism makes no sense to me.

are people supposed to understand this? :confused:


(or does everyone else actually understand and i'm just being dumb?)

Oh oh!
What about the: there's a selling error in the poll ism?

i solve the mind-body problem by masturbating profusely.
does that come under 'otherism'? ;)

Oh oh!
What about the: there's a selling error in the poll ism?
oh the irony!

Oh oh!
What about the: there's a selling error in the poll ism?

Yes, I noticed that just as I hit the submit button, and can't figure out the edit poll function. I'm always hittinf the wromg keyz.

oh the irony!
That was deliberate....yeah.....definately

*hides*

are people supposed to understand this? :confused:


(or does everyone else actually understand and i'm just being dumb?)

Do you think the mind and body are spirit and matter? (pick Cartesian dualism)

Do you think the mind and body are both physical (no spritual)? (pick physicalism)

Do you think there is no physical world? (pick subjective idealism)

Do you think something besides the above? (pick otherism)

Do you not know or haven't decided? (pick I don'r knowism)

Do you not know or haven't decided? (pick I don'r knowism)
Priceless

Pretty much physicalism.

I'm not too sure how to define what I think. I voted 'Otherism', but I suppose my views sound like they're dualist - even though I don't think of them that way.

Do you think the mind and body are spirit and matter? (pick Cartesian dualism)

Do you think the mind and body are both physical (no spritual)? (pick physicalism)

Do you think there is no physical world? (pick subjective idealism)

Do you think something besides the above? (pick otherism)

Do you not know or haven't decided? (pick I don'r knowism)
I think the mind and body are subjective and objective perspective on the same thing.

What, though, is the "problem"?

i solve the mind-body problem by masturbating profusely.
does that come under 'otherism'? ;)

Try under 'Onanism' :D

I subscribe to dualism.

I think the mind and body are subjective and objective perspective on the same thing.

What do you mean by subjective and objective perspectives on the same thing? I suspect you mean Cartesian dualism?

What, though, is the "problem"?

Breifly, cartesian dualism holds that a non-physical mind can control the physical body. The problem is, how can the non-physical affect the physical?

Physicalism gets rid of the problem as there is no immaterial mind, what we refer to as the mind is just the result of physical processes in the brain. (Both Dennett and Ramachandran who we were discussing elsewhere follow this.)

Subjective materialism solves it by claiming there is no physical world.

As it sometimes does, Wikipedia provides a jumping off point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem

What do you mean by subjective and objective perspectives on the same thing? I suspect you mean Cartesian dualism?
What do you mean by Cartesian dualism? ;)
(explanation below)

Breifly, cartesian dualism holds that a non-physical mind can control the physical body. The problem is, how can the non-physical affect the physical?

Physicalism gets rid of the problem as there is no immaterial mind, what we refer to as the mind is just the result of physical processes in the brain. (Both Dennett and Ramachandran who we were discussing elsewhere follow this.)

Subjective materialism solves it by claiming there is no physical world.

As it sometimes does, Wikipedia provides a jumping off point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem
I don't think that unreal things "control" real things in any way. I think the mind is a perspective on the brain. What I mean is, when the body does something, then from an objective perspective, it did it; but, from a subjective perspective, "I" did it. There is no conflict of causation.

The mind *is* immaterial (having no substance). Saying 'the mind controls the body' is a way of saying that we exert control with wilful intent, as opposed to the idea of being controlled.

It's a philosophical view consistent with ancient philosophies and poetries I have read (at least, I have yet to find any problem with it).

I don't think that unreal things "control" real things in any way. I think the mind is a perspective on the brain. What I mean is, when the body does something, then from an objective perspective, it did it; but, from a subjective perspective, "I" did it. There is no conflict of causation.

The mind *is* immaterial (having no substance). Saying 'the mind controls the body' is a way of saying that we exert control with wilful intent, as opposed to the idea of being controlled.

It's a philosophical view consistent with ancient philosophies and poetries I have read (at least, I have yet to find any problem with it).

So the "I"ness (as in "'I' did it") is just a result of physical processes within the brain? Or do you see the subjective "I" as being something other than physical processes?

So the "I"ness (as in "'I' did it") is just a result of physical processes within the brain? Or do you see the subjective "I" as being something other than physical processes?

It feels wrong to say that, for example, a bunch of physical processes in a brain can randomly decide to paint a picture, and the mind then perceives the physical processes in such a way that it "seems" to be having the idea to paint a picture.

It seems unlikely to me that the buck stops at "physical processes in the brain". Perhaps physical evidence thus far stops at that point, but I see no reason to think that there should be nothing more to the subject.

So the "I"ness (as in "'I' did it") is just a result of physical processes within the brain? Or do you see the subjective "I" as being something other than physical processes?
It is a symbol we create in order to be a "self". It is a result of having a subjective (individual) perspective on the world.

Yes, it is something other than "physical processes". "Physical processes" is a way of understanding our bodies from the outside looking in. The subjective perspective affords us a way of understanding those processes from the inside looking out.

It feels wrong to say that, for example, a bunch of physical processes in a brain can randomly decide to paint a picture, and the mind then perceives the physical processes in such a way that it "seems" to be having the idea to paint a picture.

It seems unlikely to me that the buck stops at "physical processes in the brain". Perhaps physical evidence thus far stops at that point, but I see no reason to think that there should be nothing more to the subject.

How could there be more? What is the reason to think that there should be more? (This gets to the root of the problem.)

It is a symbol we create in order to be a "self". It is a result of having a subjective (individual) perspective on the world.

Then what is the "we" that creates it? As before, is it a result of physical processes within the brain or something non-physical?

It feels wrong to say that, for example, a bunch of physical processes in a brain can randomly decide to paint a picture, and the mind then perceives the physical processes in such a way that it "seems" to be having the idea to paint a picture.

It seems unlikely to me that the buck stops at "physical processes in the brain". Perhaps physical evidence thus far stops at that point, but I see no reason to think that there should be nothing more to the subject.
That's the key, that hi-lighted part. If you view it objectively, then the processes are doing this itself. If you view it subjectively, then we are doing it. But, either way, it's the same thing that is getting done.

Originally Posted by Willamena
It is a symbol we create in order to be a "self". It is a result of having a subjective (individual) perspective on the world.
Then what is the "we" that creates it?
Um, that is the symbol.

As before, is it a result of physical processes within the brain or something non-physical?
It's all in how you look at it (I edited above to answer this).

Um, that is the symbol.

Symbol for what for the result of physical processes?

It's all in how you look at it (I edited above to answer this).

What is the "you" that is viewing it subjectively?

I think the mind/body dichotomy is completely invalid, because it's impossible to have one without the other [unless you're a brain in a jar]. A mind without a body is a ghost, and a body without a mind is a corpse.

Symbol for what for the result of physical processes?

What is the "you" that is viewing it subjectively?
The "I" or "me" or "you" or "we" are symbols of self, the thing at the very centre of the subjective perspective; the thing we can never "see", because it is the thing looking out from the centre. We create a symbol in order to communicate that perspective.

It is neither a result of phyiscal processes nor the cause of them.

I think the mind/body dichotomy is completely invalid, because it's impossible to have one without the other [unless you're a brain in a jar]. A mind without a body is a ghost, and a body without a mind is a corpse.
I agree. (but even the brain in the jar is "body")

I think the mind/body dichotomy is completely invalid, because it's impossible to have one without the other [unless you're a brain in a jar]. A mind without a body is a ghost, and a body without a mind is a corpse.
That's almost pretty much what I wrote in my Philosophy exam, and passed.

Although I did say that a body is still a body without a mind (if it has basic functions still working), but a mind doesn't exist without a body, as it is a construct of the physical brain.

That's not really what you said at all is it?

I know I'm jumping in here - but what's wrong with the idea of a mind without a body? I appreciate I'm mushing together 'mind' and 'soul' - but if one believes the soul leaves the body after death, or during a transcendent experience, then the soul is necessarily a distinct entity.

I think the mind/body dichotomy is completely invalid, because it's impossible to have one without the other [unless you're a brain in a jar]. A mind without a body is a ghost, and a body without a mind is a corpse.

This reminds me of experiments done on those who do not have a connection between the two hemispheres of their brains. Since the linguistic/speech centers are on the left half of the brain, only the consciousness in that half can communicate via speech. However, the right half consciousness can be communicate via rudimentary signing.

That's almost pretty much what I wrote in my Philosophy exam, and passed.

Although I did say that a body is still a body without a mind (if it has basic functions still working), but a mind doesn't exist without a body, as it is a construct of the physical brain.

That's not really what you said at all is it?
Sort of, but not quite. I'd tend to think that if a body had 'still working functions,' you'd probably have to identify the functioning center as his mind, even if he is a freak abberation wherein the body functions are controlled by, say, the pancreas.

The "I" or "me" or "you" or "we" are symbols of self, the thing at the very centre of the subjective perspective; the thing we can never "see", because it is the thing looking out from the centre. We create a symbol in order to communicate that perspective.

It is neither a result of phyiscal processes nor the cause of them.

What evidence exists for this thing of which you speak, and how does it communicate with the physical world (how does it "know" what is going on)? Why do physical lesions in the brain cause a change in consciousness and definition of self?

I tend to lean toward subjective idealism if anything, or maybe a variant of it in the Otherism category with an intermediate between mind and matter, something both mental and physical. That strikes me as not as cluttered as Cartesian dualism but without its problem of communication.

What evidence exists for this thing of which you speak, and how does it communicate with the physical world (how does it "know" what is going on)?
The best evidence for the symbol of self exists in our language: "I am in control of myself." Did your foot just touch me? "No, I didn't move my foot; it must have been someone else's." We use the symbol everyday to communicate the subjective perspective.

How does the self "know" or "communicate" what is going on? We know things through deductive reasoning, through experiential senses, through intuition, etc. and communicate them with words.

(Ask a silly question, get a reasonable answer.)

Why do physical lesions in the brain cause a change in consciousness and definition of self?
I have no clue about "lesions" or brain hackers, sorry.

I get the impression from your question that you are dead set on setting me up to be the one who argues in favour of a "real" immaterial thing? Not going to happen. The immaterial is strictly unreal.

The best evidence for the symbol of self exists in our language: "I am in control of myself." Did your foot just touch me? "No, I didn't move my foot; it must have been someone else's." We use the symbol everyday to communicate the subjective perspective.

How is that in any way evidence of an immaterial mind?

How does the self "know" or "communicate" what is going on? We know things through deductive reasoning, through experiential senses, through intuition, etc. and communicate them with words.

(Ask a silly question, get a reasonable answer.)

Actually, to be quite honest, I find your answer a complete avoidance of the question. My question is quite reaonable: By what process does an immaterial something have any connection to the real world? How does your deductive reasoning get any data to deduce anything from? How do your "experiential senses" communicate sensation from the material world to the immaterial mind? How does what you call "intuition" form a conduit between the immaterial and material worlds?

I have no clue about "lesions" or brain hackers, sorry.

Simply asking how, if the mind is immaterial, that changes to the material brain could affect changes in your immaterial mind? How is it that if I divide the physical brain in two, I get two separate minds?

I get the impression from your question that you are dead set on setting me up to be the one who argues in favour of a "real" immaterial thing? Not going to happen. The immaterial is strictly unreal.

You completely misunderstand. I am simply trying to investigate how this immaterial mind you believe in can have any influence/knowledge of the real world? And to understand how you can believe that something which you admit to not be real can exist, or something worthy of giving any consideration to? I am trying to understand your position.

How is that in any way evidence of an immaterial mind?
It's not, it is evidence of symbol. You didn't specify what you wanted evidence of, so I assumed it was the topic I was talking about.

Actually, to be quite honest, I find your answer a complete avoidance of the question. My question is quite reaonable: By what process does an immaterial something have any connection to the real world? How does your deductive reasoning get any data to deduce anything from? How do your "experiential senses" communicate sensation from the material world to the immaterial mind? How does what you call "intuition" form a conduit between the immaterial and material worlds?
It's not avoidance of the question, so much as emphasising that the question does not make sense. I know that you really meant to ask, "How do we communicate with the physical world (how do we "know" what is going on?"

An "immaterial something" does not have a "connection" to reality. It is immaterial. Therefore, your question is not reasonable.

An immaterial "world" is as immaterial as the immaterial things that comprise it. Things are not "communicated to" the immaterial mind; rather, we know them as they happen. You seem to be confused as to what a "perspective" is.

What I suspect you are really asking me is, why does consciousness work? Why do life-forms have this, and inanimate matter supposedly not? I don't know, but I have a book on order that might explain how it works.
http://dannyreviews.com/h/Consciousness_Explained.html

I have no clue what you're talking about with the 'conduit' thing. You seem to be setting up a strawman argument.

Simply asking how, if the mind is immaterial, that changes to the material brain could affect changes in your immaterial mind? How is it that if I divide the physical brain in two, I get two separate minds?
Changes in the brain correspond to changes in the mind because they are two perspectives on the same thing. It's all in how you look at it.

You completely misunderstand. I am simply trying to investigate how this immaterial mind you believe in can have any influence/knowledge of the real world? And to understand how you can believe that something which you admit to not be real can exist, or something worthy of giving any consideration to? I am trying to understand your position.
The immaterial does not influence anything, except philosophically. A symbol is not intelligent, it does not have knowledge; it's a symbol. The mind is the subjective perspective on the brain. We imagine it as a thing, abstract it in order to talk about it objectively, the same way we imagine the self as a thing.

Existence is not the same as reality. Unreal things exist; if they did not, they would be "nothing" and hence we would have nothing to talk about. Note the phrase, "It exists only his mind."

I do believe that unreal things (thoughts, feelings, concepts, this conversation, etc.) are deserving of some consideration.