Materealism and morality

[JetLeg]

It's conceivable to claim I am not really experiencing typing this post, but instead, locked in a padded room drooling on myself dreaming that I am experiencing this.
However, that possibility is absurdly unlikely.
It would be irrational to presume it has merit.

One can claim, given the overwhelming mountain of evidence, that I am, in fact, experiencing typing this post in reality.

I am pointing out to Joe the type of relationship between mind and body. Can they be the same thing? No they can't. Why? Because it is possible to conceive of them as being seperate (see my post #172 for reasons why), and if two things are the same, it is impossible to conceive of them as being seperate.

 

[Neverfly]

I am pointing out to Joe the type of relationship between mind and body. Can they be the same thing? No they can't. Why? Because it is possible to conceive of them as being seperate (see my post #172 for reasons why), and if two things are the same, it is impossible to conceive of them as being seperate.

I'm sorry but don't be confused by the fact that I appeared to defend you from JoeThe Juggler.

I was helping Joe, not you.

JoeTheJuggler has been dead on. And you can't see how and why he has heard all these arguments before?

Jetleg, it is not plausible. Is it conceivable in that one could say the chance is "Non Zero?"
The mind and body are not separate.
What evidence can you present to support your claim that they are?
Making wild speculations and claiming that there is a nonzero chance that they are separate does not support the claim that they are separate.

 

[Neverfly]

Haha. In order to prove that A and B are seperate logical entities, you don't provide evidence. You provide a hypothetical scenario in which one exists, and the other doesn't and that's enough.

HUH!?
This doesn't even make any sense at all.
What the heck are you talking about?!

For example, the left side of an object and the right side of an object are not seperate logical entities since there cannot be a hypothetical scenario in which an object has a left part, but not a right part.

The movement of a ball, and a ball are partially seperate logical entities. There can be a hypothetical situation of a ball that doesn't move. But there cannot be a movement of a ball without a ball.

So if you can imagine an alternate reality- it must exist?

Hey I have a reading Recommendation for you: String/Brane Theory.

 

[AkuManiMani]

iAh, but I didn't say the self is necessarily separate; I said that it exists. What ever processes are involved that contribute to its formation and maintainence are irrelevant to the fact that there is a self.

I cannot see how there can be two different concepts that are not separate. One thing cannot logically be two different things. Either "mind" and "brain" are separate entities, or they are different names for the same thing.

Hehe, that's just the thing. In essence they, are the same reality; they are simply different aspects of reality. There is no more a duality between mind and brain than there is between matter and energy. What I'm saying is that the distinction arises from the fact that they are different expressions of the same thing.

I'm afraid I do not follow this reasoning. It appears to me that you are positing a reality where most things are material, but some are "magical". I dunno, maybe I just don't get it. To me, either everything is material, or you have dualism. It is the only thing I can logically conclude.

Sorry, I've an odd way of viewing things and an even odder way of communicating them. I've a bad habit of taking my own quirky reasoning for granted. It seems I'm going to have an uphill battle just trying to get you to understand where I'm coming from. Once you get what I'm saying you'll see that I'm not positing the existence of 'magic' or even proposing anything that contradicts current science...

[tho, I am going to introduce some of my own terminology, extrapolate beyond whats conventionally accepted, and draw some pretty eccentric conclusions ...don't judge me >_>]


Anywho... I'm going to try and break down my reasoning as clearly as I can and its going to be a pretty long reply so please try to bear with me...

 

[AkuManiMani]

Welcome to the Twisted Mind of AkuManiMani...

*takes a breath*

.....


Okay here goes....

[1]First off, I'm drawing a semantic line in the sand. When I say "matter" I'm referring to a specific class of 'objects'; namely the units of matter called atoms and things made of atoms. I do this for the simple reason that extending it beyond these criteria tends to confuse the meaning so much that its no longer useful.

What is an atom anyway? Its an oscillating pattern of interacting fields. Atoms and their properties are emergent phenomenon. Simply put, an atom is what it's subatomic constituents do. More broadly, all real entities are patterns or systems of patterns. In my parlance, an entity is identified as its overall system of organization and distinguished from is components.


[2]An organism is a self sustaining system utilizing atoms (which are themselves oscillating patterns of fields). The organism itself constantly maintains a flow of atomic matter and energy into and out of itself to maintain its integrity. The organism isn't so much the atoms that comprise it's structure at any given time but the coherent hierarchy of systems than organizes and harnesses the matter and energy it takes in. Each subsystem layer (from the cellular up to the organ system level) can be thought of as a form of unconscious intelligence in the sense that they process and utilize information for some purpose (e.g. growth, maintenance, etc). In my parlance, an organism is an organizing system of living software operating on/within a substrate or medium of some kind.

[3]Some organisms maintain a structure we humans call a 'brain', which is used to help coordinate some of the gross activity of the rest of the organism (especially locomotion). In atleast some cases, an organism's brain can generate a subsystemof activity that has a property that we call consciousness. Like the other subsystems that make up an organism it intelligently processes informational feedback but unlike the others it is aware. This generated subsystem is what I call the conscious mind [I'll call it the CM for short]. Its generated by the brain during the waking and dreaming states.

Not only is the CM aware of certain kinds of information filtered to it but can intentionally initiate certain kinds of action within the rest of the body, retrieve or reorganize certain stored information (provided, its in the correct format), or even simulate it's own sensory perceptions. In my parlance, the CM is a living subsystem generated by and operating on a brain.


Dualism??

Now, finally...to get back to your charge of dualism. My position is quite different from Cartesian dualism in a number of significant ways. First I will define why I distinguish mind from body; then I will clarify what I mean by 'inside' and 'outside' aspects of reality. They are two separate arguments so I will clarify each of them individually.




Mind/Body

I distinguish the conscious mind [CM] from the brain because I see the CM as a specific kind of organizing field generated by the brain and directly operating on the brain. The brain itself is organized and maintained by the unconscious intelligent activity of its constituent cells which are themselves maintained by their own organizing systems. The matter that comprises their physical structure at any given moment is incidental to the organized field of information which coordinates their activity. I see the organism [and by extension, the mind] to be the dynamic software acting on the flow of matter and energy that comprise it's temporal structure. I'll call this dynamic software the organismic mind [OM], of which the conscious mind is a specialized part.

The OM is co-dependent upon it's body. Thru-out an organism's lifetime its in a constant effort to maintain it's integrity against entropy. Literally tons of matter and energy may be taken in as part of their bodily structure and continually replaced during an organism's lifetime. Even the molecules that make-up it's genome [i.e. DNA] must go thru this relentless process of replacement. Not only that, but an organism's bodily structure is liable to change -- in some species, radically so. While it has some limited capacity to facilitate regeneration from physical abuse and injury, if the damage is too catastrophic the organism's battle against entropy will be lost and it will die. After this, all structural maintenance will cease and the coherent flow of matter we call the body will decay.


Given that the matter that makes up a body at any given time is transient, and the very structure of that body is liable to change what actually defines and organism as a whole entity? The OM; the organizing software of it's physiology and behavior. I'm proposing that the OM also contains complex information governing not only morphology but also innate behaviors like instincts. As far as I'm able to discern, the CM is a highly specialized subsystem of the OM that evolved in some (possibly all) animals. The CM contains the more nuanced aspect's of a person's behavioral tendencies such as acquired personality traits, habits, beliefs, etc. In essence, its the identity of a person.

When there is a criminal trial its not the body or brain of an individual that's being tried; its their conscious deciding mind. A conscious mind is the fundamental basis of selfhood. Without selfhood all talk of morality is utterly meaningless.

>>>>>>Morality is an emergent property of selfhood. There is no morality absent self<<<<<<



"Inside"/"Outside" Aspects

Now...to deal with the whole 'inside'/'outside' business. Its a bit mind bending once you actually get it... The 'outside' aspect of reality is the objective state of things and 'inside' is the subjective perception of things:

-The 'outside' is the world as is[observed-objective aspect]; which I'll shorten to WaI

-The 'inside' is the world as seems[observing-subjective aspect]; which I'll shorten to WaS

What I'm speaking of aren't separate realms or universes but one of many dialectical aspects of reality. The WaS is part of -- within the WaI; on other words every perception is part of objective reality. One the other hand the WaI, in order to be perceived at all, must have subjective qualities and so, in turn, falls within the WaS.

>>>>>>The subject/object relation is a fundamental part of reality and because of this no meaningful language can be generated that doesn't assume such<<<<<<




Conclusion

-In regards to my Mind/Body argument...

Please note that there is a circular, causal, relationship between mind and body. Circular feedback is central to all biological processes and the mind/body relation is no exception. In this sense, I do not view the mind as something separate from the brain but distinct in much the same way that we distinguish between hardware and software -- except in this case software plays a role in maintaining it's own hardware. I think of my two arguments this one is the least 'weird'.


-In regards to my Apects argument...

Before you try to argue stop and carefully think about what it is I'm actually saying. I'm not drawing a dualistic line between two different metaphysical realities. What I'm stating is a lot more subtle than that. I don't think I can break it down anymore simply than I already have. Either you get it or you don't. I'm pretty sure that if and when you do get it you'll have one of those ".....Oh...." moments

 

[Jeff Corey]

I am pointing out to Joe the type of relationship between mind and body. Can they be the same thing? No they can't. Why? Because it is possible to conceive of them as being seperate (see my post #172 for reasons why), and if two things are the same, it is impossible to conceive of them as being seperate.

It's quite simple. No mind, only matter. Mind doesn't matter because it isn't.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The mind and the brain are logically seperate [sic] entities.

No more than "roundness" or "bouncing" are separate entities from a ball. They're properties or functions of the object.

It is conceivable to think of the mind existing without the brain. And it is conceivable to think of the brain existing without the mind. Therefore they are logically seperate entities.

That's a non-sequitur. The fact that something is conceivable doesn't prove anything about anything. Your "therefore" statement doesn't logically flow from anything you said before it.

What we did establish? That changes in the brain influence the mind. Lets go with the strongest interpretation -> that the activity of the brain causes the mind.

Does that negate dualism?

It certainly makes dualism unnecessary. At any rate, my failure to negate something does not make the case FOR that something.

There's an abundance of evidence showing that the brain and the physical things that happen to it and with it correlate very strongly to the various phenomena collectively called "the mind". Now, what's your case for dualism?

The scientific findings did nothing to negate my variety of dualism.

Yes, and evolution doesnot "negate" creationism. It's just a well-substantiated theory that makes creationism unnecessary.

Similarly, the materialist approach to mind (i.e. the current state of neuroscience) is well supported by the evidence and makes dualism unnecessary.

There is no contradiction between the idea that the mind and the matter are different "substances", and that one of them causes the other.

I showed why this notion of "substances" is a horribly weak approach above. You've added nothing new here.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Haha. In order to prove that A and B are seperate [sic] logical entities, you don't provide evidence. You provide a hypothetical scenario in which one exists, and the other doesn't and that's enough.

Why don't you provide evidence for any claim you make? A hypothetical scenario where your claim isn't self-contradictory does NOTHING to support your claim.

For example, the left side of an object and the right side of an object are not seperate[sic] logical entities since there cannot be a hypothetical scenario in which an object has a left part, but not a right part.

The movement of a ball, and a ball are partially seperate [sic] logical entities. There can be a hypothetical situation of a ball that doesn't move. But there cannot be a movement of a ball without a ball.

These are just assertions. They do nothing to advance your case at all.

You're also continuing to assert that properties of objects are separate objects.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I am pointing out to Joe the type of relationship between mind and body.

If that's what you're trying to do, you needn't bother.

It's obvious that I know a lot more about neuroscience and theories of brain and the mind than you do. And your attempt at making a case for dualism is floundering miserably.

So what's your case for dualism? I've asked you this several times. The closest you've come to making an argument is trying to show that it's not a self-contradictory theory. Neither is creationism, but it's completely false. We know this because the evidence points us elsewhere. The predictions made by creationism failed. Same too with the predictions of dualism (like that we should be able to find discorporate minds, but we don't).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

HUH!?
This doesn't even make any sense at all.
What the heck are you talking about?!

He's explaining his argumentation technique--though I have no idea why he put it in the second person. I guess he was trying to make it sound like a rule or maxim, as, for example, "You don't spit in the wind."

All he's trying to do is create a hypothetical scenario where dualism isn't logically self-contradictory (i.e. "possible"). He is not at all interested in making a case FOR dualism.

It's an unreasonable approach to argumentation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Welcome to the Twisted Mind of AkuManiMani...

*takes a breath*

.....


Okay here goes....

I had to take a deep breath before attempting to read that!

By and large, I agree with what you say. I'd quibble with some of the use of terminology and maybe a bit with some of the emphasis, but nothing that's a big deal.

I think in neurology and psychology, the "mind" encompasses unconscious processes as well as conscious. It seems like the subjective experience of consciousness happens when there are connections to the neocortex. Many sensory processes, for example, go on elsewhere in the brain, but extend connections into the neocortex which seems to be the source of our conscious experience of them. (In fact, there are a lot of relatively recent advances in neuroscience on unconscious processes--like how memories are stored, or how they shift from short-term to long-term memory, and so on.)

I guess I find it more meaningful to talk about specific processes (pattern recognition, for example, or proprioception) that to talk about conscious vs. unconscious mind.

I do like that you start the emergent properties happening even at the level of the atom. I usually don't think that way, but it makes sense. Subatomic particles are the same. There's no difference between a proton in one atom compared to one in another. The properties of the element only happen when those particles are part of that atom.

 

[Taffer]

Welcome to the Twisted Mind of AkuManiMani...

*takes a breath*

.....


Okay here goes....

[1]First off, I'm drawing a semantic line in the sand. When I say "matter" I'm referring to a specific class of 'objects'; namely the units of matter called atoms and things made of atoms. I do this for the simple reason that extending it beyond these criteria tends to confuse the meaning so much that its no longer useful.

What is an atom anyway? Its an oscillating pattern of interacting fields. Atoms and their properties are emergent phenomenon. Simply put, an atom is what it's subatomic constituents do. More broadly, all real entities are patterns or systems of patterns. In my parlance, an entity is identified as its overall system of organization and distinguished from is components.


[2]An organism is a self sustaining system utilizing atoms (which are themselves oscillating patterns of fields). The organism itself constantly maintains a flow of atomic matter and energy into and out of itself to maintain its integrity. The organism isn't so much the atoms that comprise it's structure at any given time but the coherent hierarchy of systems than organizes and harnesses the matter and energy it takes in. Each subsystem layer (from the cellular up to the organ system level) can be thought of as a form of unconscious intelligence in the sense that they process and utilize information for some purpose (e.g. growth, maintenance, etc). In my parlance, an organism is an organizing system of living software operating on/within a substrate or medium of some kind.

[3]Some organisms maintain a structure we humans call a 'brain', which is used to help coordinate some of the gross activity of the rest of the organism (especially locomotion). In atleast some cases, an organism's brain can generate a subsystem system of activity that has a property that we call consciousness. Like the other subsystems that make up an organism it intelligently processes informational feedback but unlike the others it is aware. This generated subsystem is what I call the conscious mind [I'll call it the CM for short]. Its generated by the brain during the waking and dreaming states.

Not only is the CM aware of certain kinds of information filtered to it but can intentionally initiate certain kinds of action within the rest of the body, retrieve or reorganize certain stored information (provided, its in the correct format), or even simulate it's own sensory perceptions. In my parlance, the CM is a living subsystem generated by and operating on a brain.


Dualism??

Now, finally...to get back to your charge of dualism. My position is quite different from Cartesian dualism in a number of significant ways. First I will define why I distinguish mind from body; then I will clarify what I mean by 'inside' and 'outside' aspects of reality. They are two separate arguments so I will clarify each of them individually.




Mind/Body

I distinguish the conscious mind [CM] from the brain because I see the CM as a specific kind of organizing field generated by the brain and directly operating on the brain. The brain itself is organized and maintained by the unconscious intelligent activity of its constituent cells which are themselves maintained by their own organizing systems. The matter that comprises their physical structure at any given moment is incidental to the organized field of information which coordinates their activity. I see the organism [and by extension, the mind] to be the dynamic software acting on the flow of matter and energy that comprise it's temporal structure. I'll call this dynamic software the organismic mind [OM], of which the conscious mind is a specialized part.

Thru-out an organism's lifetime its in a constant effort to maintain it's integrity against entropy. Literally tons of matter and energy may be taken in as part of their bodily structure and continually replaced during an organism's lifetime. Even the molecules that make-up it's genome [i.e. DNA] must go thru this relentless process of replacement. Not only that, but an organism's bodily structure is liable to change -- in some species, radically so. The OM is co-dependent upon it's body. While it has come limited capacity to facilitate regeneration from physical abuse and injury if the damage is too catastrophic the organism's battle against entropy will be lost and it will die. After this, all structural maintenance will cease and the coherent flow matter called the body will decay.


Given that the matter that makes up a body at any given time is transient, and the very structure of that body is liable to change what actually defines and organism as a whole entity? The OM; the organizing software of it's physiology and behavior. I'm proposing that the OM also contains complex information governing not only morphology but also innate behaviors like instincts. As far as I'm able to discern, the CM is a highly specialized subsystem of the OM that evolved in some (possibly all) animals. The CM contains the more nuanced aspect's of a person's behavioral tendencies such as acquired personality traits, habits, beliefs, etc. In essence, its the identity of a person.

When there is a criminal trial its not the body or brain of an individual that's being tried; its their conscious deciding mind. A conscious mind is the fundamental basis of selfhood. Without selfhood all talk of morality is utterly meaningless.

>>>>>>Morality is an emergent property of selfhood. There is no morality absent self<<<<<<



"Inside"/"Outside" Aspects

Now...to deal with the whole 'inside'/'outside' business. Its a bit mind bending once you actually get it... The 'outside' aspect of reality is the objective state of things and 'inside' is the subjective perception of things:

-The 'outside' is the world as is[observed-objective aspect]; which I'll shorten to WaI

-The 'inside' is the world as seems[observing-subjective aspect]; which I'll shorten to WaS

What I'm speaking of aren't separate realms or universes but one of many dialectical aspects of reality. The WaS is part of -- within the WaI; on other words every perception is part of objective reality. One the other hand the WaI, in order to be perceived at all, must have subjective qualities and so falls within the WaS.

>>>>>>The subject/object relation is a fundamental part of reality and because of this no meaningful language can be generated that doesn't assume such<<<<<<




Conclusion

-In regards to my Mind/Body argument...

Please note that there is a circular, causal, relationship between mind and body. Circular feedback is central to all biological processes and the mind/body relation is no exception. In this sense, I do not view the mind as something separate from the brain but distinct in much the same way that we distinguish between hardware and software -- except in this case software plays a role in maintaining it's own hardware. I think of my two arguments this one is the least 'weird'.


-In regards to my Apects argument...

Before you try to argue stop and carefully think about what it is I'm actually saying. I not drawing a dualistic line between two different metaphysical realities. What I'm stating is a lot more subtle than that. I don't think I can break it down anymore simply than I already have. Either you get it or you don't. I'm pretty sure that if and when you do get it you'll have one of those ".....Oh...." moments

Thank you for this. I appreciate the time you took to type it all up. I don't have time to go through it at the moment, but rest assured I will and then I'll add comments below.

 

[Taffer]

Oops, took too long and I can no-longer edit my post. If a mod sees this, please replace the post above with this one.

Welcome to the Twisted Mind of AkuManiMani...

*takes a breath*

.....


Okay here goes....

[1]First off, I'm drawing a semantic line in the sand. When I say "matter" I'm referring to a specific class of 'objects'; namely the units of matter called atoms and things made of atoms. I do this for the simple reason that extending it beyond these criteria tends to confuse the meaning so much that its no longer useful.

What is an atom anyway? Its an oscillating pattern of interacting fields. Atoms and their properties are emergent phenomenon. Simply put, an atom is what it's subatomic constituents do. More broadly, all real entities are patterns or systems of patterns. In my parlance, an entity is identified as its overall system of organization and distinguished from is components.

Ok, I'm going to attempt to generalise your argument. If I misrepresent any part of it, please correct me.

D1 Matter: Atoms and things made of atoms.
P1 Matter is an emergent property of the universe.
P1a There is a fundamental substance to the universe, below which nothing exists. (i.e. there is a primary cause).
C1 Matter is an emergent property of P1a.

[2]An organism is a self sustaining system utilizing atoms (which are themselves oscillating patterns of fields). The organism itself constantly maintains a flow of atomic matter and energy into and out of itself to maintain its integrity. The organism isn't so much the atoms that comprise it's structure at any given time but the coherent hierarchy of systems than organizes and harnesses the matter and energy it takes in. Each subsystem layer (from the cellular up to the organ system level) can be thought of as a form of unconscious intelligence in the sense that they process and utilize information for some purpose (e.g. growth, maintenance, etc). In my parlance, an organism is an organizing system of living software operating on/within a substrate or medium of some kind.

This is a bit harder for me to parse as you use some terms and ideas that could do with definition. However, in the true spirit of philosophical discourse, I'll just assume what you mean.

P2 An organism is material.
P2a That which makes an organism unique is the pattern of interaction of matter and energy, not specific matter itself.
C2 The uniqueness of an organism is an emergent property of the universe.

Using "unique" to mean "different from inanimate matter".

[3]Some organisms maintain a structure we humans call a 'brain', which is used to help coordinate some of the gross activity of the rest of the organism (especially locomotion). In atleast some cases, an organism's brain can generate a subsystem system of activity that has a property that we call consciousness. Like the other subsystems that make up an organism it intelligently processes informational feedback but unlike the others it is aware. This generated subsystem is what I call the conscious mind [I'll call it the CM for short]. Its generated by the brain during the waking and dreaming states.

Not only is the CM aware of certain kinds of information filtered to it but can intentionally initiate certain kinds of action within the rest of the body, retrieve or reorganize certain stored information (provided, its in the correct format), or even simulate it's own sensory perceptions. In my parlance, the CM is a living subsystem generated by and operating on a brain.

This to me seems like you are saying:

P3 CM is an emergent property of a brain.
P3a Being aware of itself differentiates it from other organisms.
P3b Awareness is an emergent property of CM.
P3c CM does not exist without the brain.
C3 C1+C2: CM is an emergent property of the universe.

Mind/Body

I distinguish the conscious mind [CM] from the brain because I see the CM as a specific kind of organizing field generated by the brain and directly operating on the brain. The brain itself is organized and maintained by the unconscious intelligent activity of its constituent cells which are themselves maintained by their own organizing systems. The matter that comprises their physical structure at any given moment is incidental to the organized field of information which coordinates their activity. I see the organism [and by extension, the mind] to be the dynamic software acting on the flow of matter and energy that comprise it's temporal structure. I'll call this dynamic software the organismic mind [OM], of which the conscious mind is a specialized part.

Thru-out an organism's lifetime its in a constant effort to maintain it's integrity against entropy. Literally tons of matter and energy may be taken in as part of their bodily structure and continually replaced during an organism's lifetime. Even the molecules that make-up it's genome [i.e. DNA] must go thru this relentless process of replacement. Not only that, but an organism's bodily structure is liable to change -- in some species, radically so. The OM is co-dependent upon it's body. While it has come limited capacity to facilitate regeneration from physical abuse and injury if the damage is too catastrophic the organism's battle against entropy will be lost and it will die. After this, all structural maintenance will cease and the coherent flow matter called the body will decay.


Given that the matter that makes up a body at any given time is transient, and the very structure of that body is liable to change what actually defines and organism as a whole entity? The OM; the organizing software of it's physiology and behavior. I'm proposing that the OM also contains complex information governing not only morphology but also innate behaviors like instincts. As far as I'm able to discern, the CM is a highly specialized subsystem of the OM that evolved in some (possibly all) animals. The CM contains the more nuanced aspect's of a person's behavioral tendencies such as acquired personality traits, habits, beliefs, etc. In essence, its the identity of a person.

I agree with you thus far. OM is an emergent property of informational computation within a brain. The CM is a special "type" of OM, one that is complex enough perhaps to be self aware.

When there is a criminal trial its not the body or brain of an individual that's being tried; its their conscious deciding mind. A conscious mind is the fundamental basis of selfhood. Without selfhood all talk of morality is utterly meaningless.

>>>>>>Morality is an emergent property of selfhood. There is no morality absent self<<<<<<

And now you have introduced a Ghost in the machine. The GitM is that there is a "conscious deciding mind" which is separate from the CM. That, in a way, something 'observes' the informational computation of the brain, then decides what to do. It is an unnecessary construct - you can have the exact same result without invoking a special GitM. Instead, you have the CM which is a complex computational interaction between input/output of various stimuli (including feedback loops). There is no special CDM invoked.

"Inside"/"Outside" Aspects

Now...to deal with the whole 'inside'/'outside' business. Its a bit mind bending once you actually get it... The 'outside' aspect of reality is the objective state of things and 'inside' is the subjective perception of things:

-The 'outside' is the world as is[observed-objective aspect]; which I'll shorten to WaI

-The 'inside' is the world as seems[observing-subjective aspect]; which I'll shorten to WaS

What I'm speaking of aren't separate realms or universes but one of many dialectical aspects of reality. The WaS is part of -- within the WaI; on other words every perception is part of objective reality. One the other hand the WaI, in order to be perceived at all, must have subjective qualities and so falls within the WaS.

>>>>>>The subject/object relation is a fundamental part of reality and because of this no meaningful language can be generated that doesn't assume such<<<<<<

I disagree. Consider a universe where no CM exist. Objective reality still exists unaffected. The WaS is the subset of WaI, not the other way around. WaI does not rely on a CM for anything. The WaS is simply the way imput information is computed within a CM. To put it another way, the WaS can differ from CM to CM, but the WaI cannot.

Oh, and argument by language isn't a very strong one. Our inability to form an argument without invoking a special 'mind' concept does not show that such a concept exists.

Conclusion

-In regards to my Mind/Body argument...

Please note that there is a circular, causal, relationship between mind and body. Circular feedback is central to all biological processes and the mind/body relation is no exception. In this sense, I do not view the mind as something separate from the brain but distinct in much the same way that we distinguish between hardware and software -- except in this case software plays a role in maintaining it's own hardware. I think of my two arguments this one is the least 'weird'.

That is a fairly good analogy. But software is, at its base, just a way to organise matter or information using a set of rules. Think a universal turing machine.

-In regards to my Apects argument...

Before you try to argue stop and carefully think about what it is I'm actually saying. I not drawing a dualistic line between two different metaphysical realities. What I'm stating is a lot more subtle than that. I don't think I can break it down anymore simply than I already have. Either you get it or you don't. I'm pretty sure that if and when you do get it you'll have one of those ".....Oh...." moments

[/quote]

Yes, I see now that you are not suggesting two realities. However, I still see that you are introducing an unnecessary element - namely a "decision maker". If we are talking strictly of OM, then there is no "decision maker". Why is a CM any different? The ability to monitor its own computations does not suggest a fundamental difference between it and the OM.

This is getting rather hazy territory, and if I have once again misunderstood, I apologise. I hope you don't mind if I keep at it until I full understand, if that is the case.

Incidentally, I have some objection to the argument you gave in the first part (the part I've rewritten as premises and conclusions), but I will refrain from commenting until I am sure that is your actual argument.

 

[JetLeg]

First, it seems that you misunderstand my version of dualism.

I do not claim that the mind can exist seperately from the brain.
I am not claiming that the mind influences the brain.

What I do claim is that the mind and the brain are radically different "substances", "entities". One of them (the brain), perhaps, causes the other, but they are still fundamentally different in nature.

The nature of the mind is subjective. Nobody but you can experience your thoughts and feelings. Even if with neurobiology we will be able to know perfectly what one man thinks and feels, this won't be the same as experiencing his thoughts and feelings, which is impossible.

The nature of the brain is objective. No one is privileged with regards to knowing the content of your brain better than anyone else.

And yet, it might be that the brain causes the mind. I have no problem with that. One substance, which is radically differ from the other one, causes it.


----

No more than "roundness" or "bouncing" are separate entities from a ball. They're properties or functions of the object.

My argument from conceivability doesn't try to establish that the mind can exist seperately from the body, like you seem to think. I do not argue "a disembodied consciousness is conceivable, therefore it is plausible", though both you and Neverfly constantly accuse me of it. What it does try to prove is that they are logically seperate, and therefore they cannot be the same thing. (Though one can cause the other). I argue two things : 1) Things that can be logically seperated cannot be the same thing. 2) If two things can be logically seperated, one cannot be a property of the other.
And I use the argument from conceivability to prove that they can be logically seperated.

I do not think the mind is a property of the brain, but a different substance. The mind is not a property of the brain -> it is caused by the brain.
These are radically different. The type of relationship that exists between a thing and its property is not a causal one.

No more than "roundness" or "bouncing" are separate entities from a ball. They're properties or functions of the object.

Quoting you again. With regards to any property that I can think of, it is inconceivable that a property exists without the thing that it is the property of. Can you imagine a roundness of a ball existing without a ball? Can you imagine a bouncing of a ball, without a ball? Can you imagine a scientific expirement that tries to check the existance of a "roundness of a ball without a ball", or the "bouncing of a ball, where there is no ball". I certainly can't. If you can, I'd be interested.

But, it is possible to imagine a disembodied consciousness. And this is why consciousness is not a "property" of the brain, but something radically different from the brain, which is caused by the brain.

That's a non-sequitur. The fact that something is conceivable doesn't prove anything about anything. Your "therefore" statement doesn't logically flow from anything you said before it.


It certainly makes dualism unnecessary. At any rate, my failure to negate something does not make the case FOR that something.

There's an abundance of evidence showing that the brain and the physical things that happen to it and with it correlate very strongly to the various phenomena collectively called "the mind". Now, what's your case for dualism?


Yes, and evolution doesnot "negate" creationism. It's just a well-substantiated theory that makes creationism unnecessary.

Similarly, the materialist approach to mind (i.e. the current state of neuroscience) is well supported by the evidence and makes dualism unnecessary.

See above. I hope that my position is more clear now. I certainly feel that you are doing an injustice to my arguments.

 

[Neverfly]

Your motive or intent irrelevant and notwithstanding; You DID claim that the mind and brain are separate and you DID claim it as fact.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Ok, I'm going to attempt to generalise your argument. If I misrepresent any part of it, please correct me.

D1 Matter: Atoms and things made of atoms.
P1 Matter is an emergent property of the universe.
P1a There is a fundamental substance to the universe, below which nothing exists. (i.e. there is a primary cause).
C1 Matter is an emergent property of P1a.

That's pretty much describes what I mean

Though, I might add the qualification that I leave open the possibility of infinite regression (i.e. there may not be a a way to come upon an ultimate primary cause)

This is a bit harder for me to parse as you use some terms and ideas that could do with definition. However, in the true spirit of philosophical discourse, I'll just assume what you mean.

P2 An organism is material.
P2a That which makes an organism unique is the pattern of interaction of matter and energy, not specific matter itself.
C2 The uniqueness of an organism is an emergent property of the universe.

Using "unique" to mean "different from inanimate matter".

Again, spot on.

Though I would personally add the qualification that I leave open the possibility for life to be made of literal software code or non-atomic matter or something entirely alien to us.

For instance, what would life be like living on a different brane world than us? I've been reading a little on Leonard Susskind's Anthropic Landscape in which the "universe" we live in could be one of many capable of supporting life. I wouldn't want to exclude life from other dimensions from my definition

This to me seems like you are saying:

P3 CM is an emergent property of a brain.
P3a Being aware of itself differentiates it from other organisms.
P3b Awareness is an emergent property of CM.
P3c CM does not exist without the brain.
C3 C1+C2: CM is an emergent property of the universe.

Yep, basically.

Again, I would leave open the possibility of a CM emerging on another substrate that can act as a "brain".

I agree with you thus far. OM is an emergent property of informational computation within a brain. The CM is a special "type" of OM, one that is complex enough perhaps to be self aware.

Well, kinda.

An OM is something that every organism posses; from E.coli, to redwoods, to biologists. I'm postulating it as the field of unconscious intelligence that organizes matter into an organism. Each cell, each organ, and each organ system can be thought of as a subsystem of an OM. The CM would be a subsystem associated with the nervous system of some (or all) animals.

And now you have introduced a Ghost in the machine. The GitM is that there is a "conscious deciding mind" which is separate from the CM. That, in a way, something 'observes' the informational computation of the brain, then decides what to do. It is an unnecessary construct - you can have the exact same result without invoking a special GitM. Instead, you have the CM which is a complex computational interaction between input/output of various stimuli (including feedback loops). There is no special CDM invoked.

Opps, I think I may have misspoken. The CM is whats making the decisions. Volition is a function of the CM -- otherwise, of what use is it to an organism? I'm postulating that the CM is the "ghost in the machine".

I'm also stating that because its the source of volition and sentience its the fundamental basis of morality.

I disagree. Consider a universe where no CM exist. Objective reality still exists unaffected. The WaS is the subset of WaI, not the other way around. WaI does not rely on a CM for anything. The WaS is simply the way input information is computed within a CM. To put it another way, the WaS can differ from CM to CM, but the WaI cannot.

Hmm...

You make an interesting point and you've actually caused me to reconsider some ideas that I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with, but I can't completely rule them out. Is consciousness an all or nothing kind of thing? Could it be that entities can not only have varying qualities of conscious experience but varying degrees of it?

For instance, I'm seriously wondering whether or not the world seems a certain way to creatures we generally consider unconscious. Or even more extreme [and silly], does the universe seem a certain way to atoms or elementary particles. I know it sounds completely absurd, and I'm inclined to agree it is. But I can't help asking myself: "Is it really...?"

Oh, and argument by language isn't a very strong one. Our inability to form an argument without invoking a special 'mind' concept does not show that such a concept exists.

After giving it some thought, I suppose it would depend on what ontological level one would put "consciousness" and how exactly it should be defined. Like I said, I've got a lot more to think thru and I'm probably goign to make conceptual steps I'm a bit uncomfortable with.

In any case, the core of the aspect argument still stands, regardless:

-There is no language without some form of intelligence,

-You cannot have intelligence absent an entity

-You cannot have an entity without a distinguishing split between itself and everything else (inside/outside)

-Therefore, the subject/object relation is still and unavoidable aspect of any meaningful language

That is a fairly good analogy. But software is, at its base, just a way to organise matter or information using a set of rules. Think a universal turing machine.

Well, I think its analogous but not really the same, for a couple of reasons.

For one thing, I'm still going with the narrow definition of matter I used earlier (atomic entities). Information is real even outside the domain of atoms so software need not be matter based.

Second, I suspect that while biological 'software' is analogous in the sense of being informational like a Turing program its distinguished by being able to generate algorithms while being non-algorithmic itself.

Incidentally, I have some objection to the argument you gave in the first part (the part I've rewritten as premises and conclusions), but I will refrain from commenting until I am sure that is your actual argument.

Well, I hope this response helps to clear up some of what I mean.

Oh, and I'd like to thank you and Joe for all the positive criticism and feedback you've given. You've both been a great help in helping me refine a lot of my ideas

 

[JetLeg]

Your motive or intent irrelevant and notwithstanding; You DID claim that the mind and brain are separate and you DID claim it as fact.

Again, the issue is what is meant by "seperate".

I do not claim that the mind can exist without the brain. (At least, there is no evidence for this).




I claim that the mind is a different type of thing than the brain, it has different qualities (subjectivity), it is not the same as the brain, neither it is its property. But it still is probably caused by the brain.

 

[Neverfly]

Look, I'm not saying that dragons exist, I'm just pointing out that it's conceivable that they might.

Isn't it conceivable that the dinosaur bones we think we've found are actually dragon bones?

And again! I'm not saying that UFO's really are aliens- I am just saying that we don't know... So it's conceivable that UFO's are visitors from space. I'm not claiming that they are.

But if you can at least admit that it's conceivable, I don't see why you won't admit that Dinosaurs never ruled the Earth and what we've found is the remains of Dragon Burial Grounds.

Look, I'm not claiming that Slippery Space Dragons are REAL, OK? Sheesh, guys, I'm not crazy...

 

[JetLeg]

AkuManiMani, why do you think morality presupposes a self?

Buddhist do believe in morality, not believing in a self, and I see no contradictions in their position.

 

[Taffer]

AkuManiMani: I'm not going to reply tonight. I've been nursing a headache all day and I'm off to bed early. I'll try and find some time tomorrow to respond in depth. Just after a quick skim of your latest post, it does indeed help clarify.

ETA: Jetleg, as far as I can tell, he doesn't presuppose a "self" when considering morality. But I could be mistaken.