Materealism and morality

[JetLeg]

Thanks. So to re-iterate, what you're trying to establish is that it is possible for the brain and mind to be two separate entities; there's no logical contradiction.

Well, I'm not sure if I agree with you, though it's hard for me to say that something like that is impossible. You may be right. I think what many people are trying to say here is not so much that it is impossible, but that it is unnecessary. It's simpler just to say that the mind is a property of the brain, and fits with what we know scientifically about the brain. So since it's simpler, it's more logical to go with that. I think that's where I'm coming from, too.

Now that I know where you're coming from, let me point something out and get your thoughts. Isn't it possible that there is a logical contradiction, and you're just not aware of it? Perhaps the reason you are not aware is because we don't fully understand yet how the mind is a property of the brain... there is definitely evidence that it is, but we don't know all the details yet. If we knew all the details, isn't is possible that we would say that the mind is a property of a brain in exactly the same way that round is a property of an orange?

In other words, when you say "we can conceive of a mind without a brain," is it possible that the way you want to conceive it is itself fundamentally flawed?

Hi there.

First, I do agree that there can be a logical contradiction, and a one that I am not aware of. But I don't think that it can be discovered by making more scientific expirements.

I think so because what scientific expirements establish is exactly that B is caused by A. They make a change in B, and observe a change in A. They do it a lot, and conclude that B as a whole is caused by A. I don't see any logical pathway that leads from "B is caused by A" to "B is a property of A".
(B=mind, A=brain).





I will give you another example that is not intended to prove that the mind is a cause of the brain (vs. a property of), but merely to sharpen your intuition about it.

Suppose that there is a Third variable, that the brain causes it, and this variable causes the mind in its turn. (We think that A causes B, but actually A causes C, and C causes B). I don't know what that can be, and do not say that this is the case. But it could logically be true. And in this hypothetic scenario, eliminating C from the equation would stop the relationship between A and B. A would no longer cause B, the brain would no longer cause the brain.

Or alternatively, the third variable is the brain causes the mind, only in the presence of this variable. A causes B ONLY in the presence of C. Nevermind what C is. Eliminating C, again would prohibit A from causing B, though for a different reason.

Now why do I care about these examples? I don't think that they prove anything convincingly, but they illuminate by showing that these examples are possible that relationship between A and B is a causal one. In a relationship between a thing and its entity, one wouldn't expect these options, as far as I can think. In a relationship between a thing and its cause, one would. These examples just illuminate and sharpen the case, I don't think they are strong enough to prove.







How can I be convinced that there is a logical contradiction actually? JoeThe Juggler argued, and I am convinced by this specific point that the popular understanding of the "soul" involves some type of "ghost-body". So there is a contradiction in it. On one hand it claims something immmaterial, on the other hand there is a ghost-body. (The fact that the ghost-body is transparent still doesn't make it immaterial... ). And I agree that the popular idea isn't really conceiving a disembodied consciousness. So this type of argumentation I can accept, and I think is useful.

 

[JetLeg]

I have a question to ask of JoeTheJuggler and of everyone :

Do you accept "qualia" to exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

This is important for the discussion.

 

[JetLeg]

JoeTheJuggler, I still owe you a reply about p-zombies. But nevertheless, I want to ask your opinion about these two examples :

1) There were scientific tests to check the existence of out of body experiences. Is your position that these scientific tests tried to check that existance of something that is inconceivable?

2) Literature and movies are abundant with stories and films about two persons that have swapped minds. Would you agree that it is conceivable?

If the mind is a property of the brain, then how would it be possible to conceive of it?

Can you conceive of A and B, two entities - swapping their properties??

(Of course, you can argue that it is inconceivable, since the mind is a property of the brain, and you cannot conceive of two entities swapping their properties, but that would just be begging the question).

 

[Neverfly]

I have a question to ask of JoeTheJuggler and of everyone :

Do you accept "qualia" to exist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Jetleg, what is 0 multiplied by infinity?

Why don't you stop sitting around wondering what might be... and pick up some books and exercise your mind? LEARN.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I AM being serious.

0 * Infinity...
Well.. Anything multiplied by zero is zero. But then again... The act of multiplying is a process which is shortened mathematically. So even if you multiply infinity by zero, you must do it an infinite amount of times... so it's infinite.
In the end, the answer is "Undefined."

Because these are just constructs of our imagination.

When you understand this concept, you will much better be able to determine what is reality and what is fantasy. And the only way you're going to do that is to start learning and stop dreaming and guessing.

 

[JetLeg]

AkuManiMani :

First, I disagree that "we" have established epiphenomenalism to be wrong. The position I defend here is dualistic-epiphenomenalism. Why do you think it is wrong?


Second, regarding the interaction problem. How does the physical and the non-physical interact?

Well, there are lots of interpretations of quantum mechanics. But all can agree on the expiremental facts, right? So even if there is no good theory of how they interact, what does it matter? You ask this question, as if it can somehow negate the expiremental evidence that it does. (I think that every expirement that shows that the brain causes the mind establishes that the material causes the mental-immaterial).


And another answer : It doesn't _always_ make sense to ask "and why does that happen"? We explain the reaction of molecules in terms of their atoms. We explain the reactions of atoms in terms of electrons, protons, and neutrons. But I think that an infinite regress is impossible. At some point we will come to the most basic particles, and the most basic forces of nature, about which it will not make sense to ask "and why does this happen?". I think that the facts that certain type of matter cause certain type of mind are also basic facts, which we can observe, classify, and categorize, but cannot offer an explanation in terms of a larger theory.

 

[JetLeg]

Yes, but I'm pretty sure that's what he means as well. (In fact, I'm nearly certain of it, because this is the same p zombie argument for dualism I've run into before.)

I think he means to say (and did say) that if one can conceive of a disembodied mind (or a p-zombie--a "disem-minded" body so to speak), it proves that the two are logically separate entities. (Not that that it's merely possible for them to be logically separate, but that they are. In other words, this is the extent of the argument for dualism.)

He's saying that it's impossible to conceive of roundness separate from the ball, but that it is possible to conceive of a mind without a body.

I agree with your take--depending on how you define "conceivable" you either can conceive of both or neither. I don't think he's thought the disembodied mind or p-zombie idea through enough to see the contradictions at all. (Recall the stuff about a mind-reader, and his insistence that that would somehow resolve the problem that we can't share someone else's subjective experience--as a way to distinguish p-zombies from regular people.)

I'm pretty sure he thinks that the relationship between mind and body is fundamentally different than the relationship between roundness and ball. Not by a matter of degree, but of kind.

This is all pretty accurate, besides the bolded paragraph.

According to my understanding of the term "logically separate", it is meaningless to say that

"A and B can be logically separate but they aren't ".

Can you provide me of a single example of such A,B that can be logically separate, but aren't?

 

[L The Detective]

Jetlag, your answers are a bit long-winded. And what's the deal with the erratic spacing in your posts? It's almost as if you're becoming unhinged. It kind of makes me feel uneasy...

 

[HansMustermann]

1) There were scientific tests to check the existence of out of body experiences. Is your position that these scientific tests tried to check that existance of something that is inconceivable?

Well, we can conceive lots of things. E.g., a black lightsaber. (Someone actually modded one for KOTOR.) Or for that matter a black laser beam. We can come up with such ideas as the sound of clapping with no hands. Or the grin without the rest of the cat from Alice.

Or come up with such ideas like the "Dark Sucker" theory ( https://www.msu.edu/user/dynicrai/physics/dark.htm )

I can't speak for him, but the way _I_ understood it was more like "conceive it in a way that makes any sense."

2) Literature and movies are abundant with stories and films about two persons that have swapped minds. Would you agree that it is conceivable?

See above.

If the mind is a property of the brain, then how would it be possible to conceive of it?

If light is made of photons and darkness is just the absence of visible light, how would it be possible to conceive a Dark Sucker? If a lightsaber is based on a laser and made of photons, how can we conceive a black one? If clapping is by definition done with your hands, how can we conceive clapping without hands? If the world is divided in life and death, how can we conceive such a thing as undeath? (It would seem to me like the vampires would be very much alive the way they're described.) Etc.

ETA: Or a better example: if sound is just waves propagating through a medium, how come we can conceive sound in a vaccuum? See any StarWars movie.

We can conceive lots of nonsensical stuff. You don't need to take something as some deeper fundamental truth just because someone can imagine it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is all pretty accurate, besides the bolded paragraph.

According to my understanding of the term "logically separate", it is meaningless to say that

"A and B can be logically separate but they aren't ".

So where did I misrepresent your argument?

L thought you were only arguing that dualism is possible. I'm pointing out that your position is stronger than that--your argument is that if a disembodied mind or a p-zombie is conceivable it proves dualism (i.e. that mind and body are "logically separate").

BTW, you've just admitted that your argument is begging the question. You want me to concede that a discorporate mind is conceivable even though you just said that it is tantamount to asking me to concede dualism.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, we can conceive lots of things. E.g., a black lightsaber. (Someone actually modded one for KOTOR.) Or for that matter a black laser beam. We can come up with such ideas as the sound of clapping with no hands. Or the grin without the rest of the cat from Alice.

Or come up with such ideas like the "Dark Sucker" theory ( https://www.msu.edu/user/dynicrai/physics/dark.htm )

I can't speak for him, but the way _I_ understood it was more like "conceive it in a way that makes any sense."

Well said.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

1) There were scientific tests to check the existence of out of body experiences. Is your position that these scientific tests tried to check that existance[sic] of something that is inconceivable?

Show me what scientific test you're talking about, and I'll tell you whether or not they "were trying to check that the existence of something that is inconceivable."

2) Literature and movies are abundant with stories and films about two persons that have swapped minds. Would you agree that it is conceivable?

No. See Hans' excellent post. You can talk about things that are not possible. You can make movies and stories about such things too. It does nothing to argue for dualism (or any other point).

Have you ever read Flatland? Do you think a world of just two dimensions is possible? (Or the 1-D world mentioned in it?)

Are such things conceivable?

If the mind is a property of the brain, then how would it be possible to conceive of it?

As I said before, the "mind" is a collection of a great many mental capabilities and processes. The ability to makes up stuff that isn't true is certainly within the ability of the brain.

Are you saying that anything I can make up must be true? I can "conceive" of the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. Does that mean it's possible to build a castle on a cloud?

Can you conceive of A and B, two entities - swapping their properties??

Again, it depends on what you mean by "conceive". If you're using the word as you have been (with movies about things that are logically impossible), then yes, I can conceive of swapping properties. I've got a machine with two chambers. I put a red ball in one and a yellow cube in the other. I throw the switch, electricity jumps across a "Jacob's Ladder" on the top, and then there's the sound of a "ding" (just like my microwave oven), and lo! the ball is now yellow and the cube is now red. The machine has swapped the property of "color" between two objects.

So have I not just "proven" by your reasoning that "red" is a separate entity from a "red ball" and not just a property of it?

I can "conceive" of a grape-flavored apple. Does this mean that "flavor" is not a property of an apple, but actually a logically separate entity?

 

[AkuManiMani]

AkuManiMani :

First, I disagree that "we" have established epiphenomenalism to be wrong. The position I defend here is dualistic-epiphenomenalism. Why do you think it is wrong?


Second, regarding the interaction problem. How does the physical and the non-physical interact?

I've already posted my reasons. I don't like repeating myself.

Judging from your responses, I'm not sure if you understood what I was trying to say, but I've broken it down as best I can. All I can do is suggest you carefully re-read what I've said :-/

 

[L The Detective]

I think so because what scientific expirements establish is exactly that B is caused by A. They make a change in B, and observe a change in A. They do it a lot, and conclude that B as a whole is caused by A. I don't see any logical pathway that leads from "B is caused by A" to "B is a property of A".(B=mind, A=brain).

A logical pathway? Maybe you're right, maybe there isn't one. However, I'm wondering why "B is caused by A" is the default assumption. Maybe the only difference between you and I is one of perspective. Let me see if I can show you what I mean with a counter-example:

They make a change in B (ball), and observe a change in A (roundness). Changing B also causes A to change, for example: the ball may no longer be round. Therefore they conclude that A is a property of B.

They make a change in B (brain), and observe a change in A (mind). Changing B also causes A to change, for example: alcohol makes you feel great! Therefore they conclude that A is a property of B.

So, here's my question to you... why is my way of looking at it wrong, and yours right? For what reason?

I will give you another example that is not intended to prove that the mind is a cause of the brain (vs. a property of), but merely to sharpen your intuition about it.

Suppose that there is a Third variable, that the brain causes it, and this variable causes the mind in its turn. (We think that A causes B, but actually A causes C, and C causes B). I don't know what that can be, and do not say that this is the case. But it could logically be true. And in this hypothetic scenario, eliminating C from the equation would stop the relationship between A and B. A would no longer cause B, the brain would no longer cause the brain.

Hmm. I would have to say that while this scenario may be possible, I can't think of any good reason to suggest it. It seems convoluted.

Now why do I care about these examples? I don't think that they prove anything convincingly, but they illuminate by showing that these examples are possible that relationship between A and B is a causal one. In a relationship between a thing and its entity, one wouldn't expect these options, as far as I can think.

Sorry, but I don't think they establish a causal relationship. The best I can say is that a causal relationship is one possibility.

How can I be convinced that there is a logical contradiction actually? JoeThe Juggler argued, and I am convinced by this specific point that the popular understanding of the "soul" involves some type of "ghost-body". So there is a contradiction in it. On one hand it claims something immmaterial, on the other hand there is a ghost-body. (The fact that the ghost-body is transparent still doesn't make it immaterial... ). And I agree that the popular idea isn't really conceiving a disembodied consciousness. So this type of argumentation I can accept, and I think is useful.

Yes, we agree on that point. An "out of body experience" is an interesting idea, but modern science seems to make quite clear that it is pure fantasy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How can I be convinced that there is a logical contradiction actually? JoeThe Juggler argued, and I am convinced by this specific point that the popular understanding of the "soul" involves some type of "ghost-body". So there is a contradiction in it. On one hand it claims something immmaterial, on the other hand there is a ghost-body. (The fact that the ghost-body is transparent still doesn't make it immaterial... ).

The fact that it's transparent means it can't see. (For eyes to work they have to interact with light--that is absorb it.)

But these ghost-bodies are merely transparent, are they? They have no mass, displace no volume of air or water (or anything else), etc.

It is a contradiction to say that such a thing can be aware of the real world. It would have no means of seeing, hearing, being in any particular location, moving, exerting a force on anything, and so on.

And I agree that the popular idea isn't really conceiving a disembodied consciousness. So this type of argumentation I can accept, and I think is useful.

So, do you still insist that a disembodied mind is conceivable (in the way you're talking about--the way that necessitates the mind then being a logically separate entity from the body and not a property of it)?

 

[JetLeg]

So where did I misrepresent your argument?

L thought you were only arguing that dualism is possible. I'm pointing out that your position is stronger than that--your argument is that if a disembodied mind or a p-zombie is conceivable it proves dualism (i.e. that mind and body are "logically separate").

BTW, you've just admitted that your argument is begging the question. You want me to concede that a discorporate mind is conceivable even though you just said that it is tantamount to asking me to concede dualism.

You quoted only three quarters of my post.

This is all pretty accurate, besides the bolded paragraph.

According to my understanding of the term "logically separate", it is meaningless to say that

"A and B can be logically separate but they aren't ".

Can you provide me of a single example of such A,B that can be logically separate, but aren't?

Can you please answer the question in the last sentence.

To the last paragraph in your post : If you conceive of a disembodied mind, or of a p-zombie, and understand that this means they separate logical entities this proves my understanding of dualism. This is not begging the question, but proving a point...

I ask you to accept "A", and if you agree that "A" is true, then it proves "B". This is a mechanism of proving a point and not a one of begging the question..

 

[JetLeg]

Jetlag, your answers are a bit long-winded. And what's the deal with the erratic spacing in your posts? It's almost as if you're becoming unhinged. It kind of makes me feel uneasy...

My posts become long, since the topic is serious and I have much to say. What is the problem with that?

Considering the erratic spaces - I was discussing many topics, and the spaces between them were intended to make easier for the reader to read one topic after another, separate them more easily.

 

[JetLeg]

Jetleg, what is 0 multiplied by infinity?

Why don't you stop sitting around wondering what might be... and pick up some books and exercise your mind? LEARN.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I AM being serious.

0 * Infinity...
Well.. Anything multiplied by zero is zero. But then again... The act of multiplying is a process which is shortened mathematically. So even if you multiply infinity by zero, you must do it an infinite amount of times... so it's infinite.
In the end, the answer is "Undefined."

Because these are just constructs of our imagination.

When you understand this concept, you will much better be able to determine what is reality and what is fantasy. And the only way you're going to do that is to start learning and stop dreaming and guessing.

In this post you haven't adressed a single specific claim by me, nor a single specific claim made in one of the links.

 

[HansMustermann]

JetLeg, it still seems to me like what you're really trying to say is that "mind" and "brain" are different "concepts" rather than different entities. It's a subtle but important distinction.

Just being able to conceive A without B doesn't really mean much more than that they're different abstract concepts. It doesn't really mean much more than that, though.

To it, we can conceive or imagine, and even make movies about:

- sound without a medium to propagate through (see Star Wars movies again)

- a portable hole which exists without something _in_ which it would be a hole. (See several cartoons.)

- a software that exists without any hardware

- a gravity without a mass that creates it (see the HPG thread for example)

- a magnetic pole without the other one (among other things, see a bunch of woo remedies)

Etc.

It just means that they're different abstract concepts, and that the human mind is very good at dealing with abstract concepts. It doesn't mean anything more profound than that.

Or shorter: just being able to imagine something, doesn't make it an actual dualism.

 

[JetLeg]

JetLeg, it still seems to me like what you're really trying to say is that "mind" and "brain" are different "concepts" rather than different entities. It's a subtle but important distinction.

Just being able to conceive A without B doesn't really mean much more than that they're different abstract concepts. It doesn't really mean much more than that, though.

To it, we can conceive or imagine, and even make movies about:

- sound without a medium to propagate through (see Star Wars movies again)

- a portable hole which exists without something _in_ which it would be a hole. (See several cartoons.)

- a software that exists without any hardware

- a gravity without a mass that creates it (see the HPG thread for example)

- a magnetic pole without the other one (among other things, see a bunch of woo remedies)

Etc.

It just means that they're different abstract concepts, and that the human mind is very good at dealing with abstract concepts. It doesn't mean anything more profound than that.

Or shorter: just being able to imagine something, doesn't make it an actual dualism.

Let's take the example of the "the sound of a single clapping hand" and "the portable hole" (I loved "Who framed Roger Rabbit"). There are contradictions within those terms. By "conceive" I mean something that also involves logical thinking, which really does think about those terms. Something that actually attaches meaning to the words.


It is impossible to attach a referent to the term of a "hole without something that it is a hole in". It is a contradiction in terms. It is impossible to be a referent of such a word.

(By the way, in the movie, they don't actually draw a "portable hole". What they draw is a black portable circle that magically becomes a hole, when one puts it on any surface... )



Did you understand the different terms in the ways we used "conceive"? For example, an "immaterial ghost" is inconceivable. There is a contradiction in the term. "Ghost" implies a certain form, which "immaterial" denies. You can say "well, there are movies about ghosts". But in the movies those ghosts aren't really presented as immaterial...

For example, I also think that the word "supernatural" is inconceivable, since it cannot have a referent. People certainly believe in supernatural things, and bla bla bla... But what they really believe when they say "supernatural" is more of the nature of "something that I cannot understand, mysterious, wow". It is impossible to conceive of something supernatural, since the term itself is self-contradictory. Nature is by definition "all that exists", and there cannot be anything "outside of all that exists", it is a meaningless expression. When I say "conceive" it includes logical thinking about the meaning of your words.


To re-iterate, my argument is that it is impossible to think of a property without the thing it is a property of. By think, I mean logical thinking, such a thinking that ascribes concrete referents to each of the terms of the wordd. It is impossible for a property of a ball to exist without a ball - and NOT for scientific reasons. But the reason why we know that it is impossible for a disembodied consciousness to exist is BECAUSE of scientific reasons. There is a difference.

 

[L The Detective]

My posts become long, since the topic is serious and I have much to say. What is the problem with that?

Considering the erratic spaces - I was discussing many topics, and the spaces between them were intended to make easier for the reader to read one topic after another, separate them more easily.

Fair enough. But I think you should stick to single-spacing. I don't see how the random extra space makes your posts any clearer.