Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[fantome profane]

Fantome, this is so easy to demonstrate. The law of identity...it can be used to demonstrate that your brain isn't you...it may be "yours", but it isn't "you"....there is an inner person...an inner "self".

So for example..when you are happy, your brain isn't happy...the neurons in your brain isn't happy...so how can "you" be happy, when your brain isn't happy...if there is something true about your brain that isn't true about "you", then obviously "you" are not identical with your brain. So what does that mean? It means that the inner "you" has absolutely nothing to do with your brain, as far as origins is concerned.

If you are experiencing the emotion identified as "happiness" that means that you neurological structure has taken a specific physical form (or perhaps one of several neurological forms). The technology exists that we can now measure and map out this neurological structure. Further certain chemicals can induce a feeling of happiness when introduced into the brain.

I see no evidence here, and no reason to think that happiness cannot be the result of the brain.

Second, I can further emphasize the fact that the brain cannot be the origins of consciousness. The human body is made up of matter, right? So because of this, it is easy to imagine a scientist creating a human body from scratch...from preexisting matter.

Now, how will this scientist make this freshly created body a living and breathing "person". What will be the ignition from "nonliving" to "living"? How will you get consciousness in there? How will you plug thoughts into the brain?

This might be beyond our current level of technology, but I see no reason to believe that it is impossible in principle to create an artificial mind that thinks and feels just as a a mind that is produced buy a natural organic brain. Before you say it I admit that this has not been proven. But you certainly have not even come close to proving that physical material cannot produce a mind.

 

[idav]

The entire post...please explain it in a different way.

OK, lets start with something not so simple.

Explain to me your interpretation of the following experiment. What are the ramification of what is seen with the observations? Anybody, how does a photon know things?

The thing that causes people to argue about when and how the photon learns that the experimental apparatus is in a certain configuration and then changes from wave to particle to fit the demands of the experiment's configuration is the assumption that a photon had some physical form before the astronomers observed it. Either it was a wave or a particle; either it went both ways around the galaxy or only one way. Actually, quantum phenomena are neither waves nor particles but are intrinsically undefined until the moment they are measured. In a sense, the British philosopher Bishop Berkeley was right when he asserted two centuries ago "to be is to be perceived."[3]
When it can be demonstrated that particles know things at the micro level it shows that a sort of mind precedes matter but doesn't necessarily precede existence itself.

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nomen Nescio]

Apparently I am on the right track, no one can scientifically prove and/or demonstrate how consciousness could have originated from matter, so I will keep driving this point home.

So, because we have incomplete knowledge of the nature of the mechanism behind a claim that necessarily means that the claim itself is not true? let's ignore all the converging evidence on the basis of which we can confidently conclude that A causes B, we don't perfectly understand A as a mechanism therefore A doesn't or can't cause B, eh?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, because we have incomplete knowledge of the nature of the mechanism behind a claim that necessarily means that the claim itself is not true?

No, claim is even stronger than that...I am saying that there is no possible world at which a intelligent human being can create the body of another human being from pre-existing materials, and ignite living and conscious capabilities within the body.

Even in that scenario, an intelligent human cannot do it, so what makes you think that a mindless and blind process could do it....if you think that it could, then GIVE ME A SCENARIO AT WHICH IT COULD.

let's ignore all the converging evidence on the basis of which we can confidently conclude that A causes B, we don't perfectly understand A as a mechanism therefore A doesn't or can't cause B, eh?

Can you demonstrate how A (the brain) caused B (the mind) to exist? Oh please, enlighten me.

 

[idav]

OK, lets start with something not so simple.

Explain to me your interpretation of the following experiment. What are the ramification of what is seen with the observations? Anybody, how does a photon know things?

When it can be demonstrated that particles know things then mind can precede the matter that makes us up. That doesn't necessarily mean mind precedes existence itself so there is no demonstration or experiment that can show mind is the fundamental building block. Just guesses based on religious and philosophical preference.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you are experiencing the emotion identified as "happiness" that means that you neurological structure has taken a specific physical form (or perhaps one of several neurological forms). The technology exists that we can now measure and map out this neurological structure. Further certain chemicals can induce a feeling of happiness when introduced into the brain.

But the chemicals themselves are not happy. You are happy. The engine of the car isn't driving, the car is driving. The paper isn't printing, the printer is printing.

The car and the engine are two different things. The paper and the printer are two different things. The engine correlates with the car. The paper correlates with the printer. The origin of the engine has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the car. The origin of the paper has nothing to do with the origin of the printer.

The origin of your brain has nothing to do with the origin of your mind.

I see no evidence here, and no reason to think that happiness cannot be the result of the brain.

So when you are happy, your brain is happy? So if someone took your brain out your skull, and sat it right next to your body...are you the brain, or are you the body?

This might be beyond our current level of technology, but I see no reason to believe that it is impossible in principle to create an artificial mind that thinks and feels just as a a mind that is produced buy a natural organic brain. Before you say it I admit that this has not been proven. But you certainly have not even come close to proving that physical material cannot produce a mind.

Then I'd like a point by point refutation of my post that was directed towards you when you asked for my evidence. Until then, keep on dodging.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

When it can be demonstrated that particles know things then mind can precede the matter that makes us up. That doesn't necessarily mean mind precedes existence itself so there is no demonstration or experiment that can show mind is the fundamental building block. Just guesses based on religious and philosophical preference.

Responding to your own posts? SMH.

 

[idav]

Responding to your own posts? SMH.

Clarifying for whoever cares. Apparently not yourself. And its on topic.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Clarifying for whoever cares. Apparently not yourself. And its on topic.

 

[sun rise]

No, claim is even stronger than that...I am saying that there is no possible world at which a intelligent human being can create the body of another human being from pre-existing materials, and ignite living and conscious capabilities within the body.

Even in that scenario, an intelligent human cannot do it, so what makes you think that a mindless and blind process could do it....if you think that it could, then GIVE ME A SCENARIO AT WHICH IT COULD.



Can you demonstrate how A (the brain) caused B (the mind) to exist? Oh please, enlighten me.

While I basically agree with you in this debate since I believe that there is a soul which becomes embodied, this particular post led me to say that it can be done -it's called pregnancy. And given the amount of genetic manipulation we're seeing today, people can theoretically make changes in the kind of people that are born.

 

[Bunyip]

No, claim is even stronger than that...I am saying that there is no possible world at which a intelligent human being can create the body of another human being from pre-existing materials, and ignite living and conscious capabilities within the body.

Buddy, that happens hundreds of times every day - how can you not know that?

Your mum did it.

Even in that scenario, an intelligent human cannot do it, so what makes you think that a mindless and blind process could do it....if you think that it could, then GIVE ME A SCENARIO AT WHICH IT COULD.

Well because mindless organisms evolved into us, and we are intelligent.

Can you demonstrate how A (the brain) caused B (the mind) to exist? Oh please, enlighten me.

Of course, you just keep repeating your denial. Of course it can be demonstrated that the brain causes the mind to exist. The mind is demonstrably a product of the brain.

You seem to see some sort of unimaginable mystery to what is just commonplace.

 

[MD]

The brain and the mind are intricately tied to one another. The brain gives rise to the mind.

But what exactly is 'the brain'. Is it just neurons and dendrites or is there more? The conscious experience is totally different from the physical substrates which give rise to it, thus the brain cannot only be physical. Which means there are other aspects at play here. Perhaps consciousness is a property of all matter and as such in certain configurations (like the brain) give rise to what we identify as human consciousness.

But this is speculation, as would be any other theories. Anyone who claims that we have figured out the hard problem of consciousness is either a liar or just plain ignorant about the philosophical hurdles the 'mind' poses. But one thing is for sure, for the mind to arise from the brain there are laws of nature and physics which go beyond what we know now and most definitely when discovered would sound a lot more like dualism than monism.

 

[Bunyip]

The brain and the mind are intricately tied to one another. The brain gives rise to the mind.

But what exactly is 'the brain'. Is it just neurons and dendrites or is there more? The conscious experience is totally different from the physical substrates which give rise to it, thus the brain cannot only be physical. Which means there are other aspects at play here. Perhaps consciousness is a property of all matter and as such in certain configurations (like the brain) give rise to what we identify as human consciousness.

But this is speculation, as would be any other theories. Anyone who claims that we have figured out the hard problem of consciousness is either a liar or just plain ignorant about the philosophical hurdles the 'mind' poses. But one thing is for sure, for mind to arise from brain then physicalism is flawed.

Sure the brain is physical, but what makes you think it must also have some as yet unevidenced extra quality beyond matter and energy? What other aspect is there - and why would you think it exists? You are suggesting that this unknown extra thingy MUST exist, and that anyone who denies it is a liar - but why?

The universe is matter and energy - and some of that matter and energy composes intelligent, self aware beings, so why would there need to be something other than matter and energy?

 

[MD]

Sure the brain is physical, but what makes you think it must also have some as yet unevidenced extra quality beyond matter and energy? What other aspect is there - and why would you think it exists? You are suggesting that this unknown extra thingy MUST exist, and that anyone who denies it is a liar - but why?

Please read the Hard Problem of Consciousness. This is like common knowledge for anyone arguing about the mind vs brain. It's pretty obvious conscious experience is different from the physical substrates which give rise to it. You can try to explain it away by saying it's a process or it arises magically out of thin air, but it won't work.

 

[Bunyip]

Please read the Hard Problem of Consciousness. This is like common knowledge for anyone arguing about the mind vs brain. It's pretty obvious conscious experience is different from the physical substrates which give rise to it. You can try to explain it away by saying it's a process or it arises magically out of thin air, but it won't work.

I've read it and found it to be rather pointlessly adding some redundant extra layer to a simple equation. Perhaps you should read some books on neurophyschology?

I'm not trying to 'explain anything away', all I am asking is why you would imagine that there needs to be anything more than matter and energy, when matter and energy are enough to form the entire universe and we have no evidence of any extra thingy so how could it be necessary?

I'm not saying that consciousness arises out of thin air - I am saying that it is a product of the physical brain. Where did you get the 'thin air' bit?


I cannot help but ask if YOU have read The hard problem of Consciousness yourself? Because unlike you Chalmers is not arguing that there must be some dimension other than matter and energy.

 

[Bunyip]

“It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."

Just a little info, hope you don't mind. This is what D Chalmers actually had to say in HPoC, you will see it is quite different from what you imagined.

 

[Nomen Nescio]

Can you demonstrate how A (the brain) caused B (the mind) to exist? Oh please, enlighten me.

No, i'm sorry, but i can't. And the reason why i can't do it is due to the fact that we are decades away to even come close to an understanding of brain function on the level where we can start to explain how cognitive functions come out of the information processing activity of the brain as a result of it. You seem to be ignorant of that fact and you are using our lack of understanding to make an "dualism of the gaps" style of argument In accordance with a argument from ignorance in claiming that this gap in our understanding somehow proves that the brain does not cause the mind. This is something which creationists have been doing with the theory of evolution – we don't have all the fossils, all the transitional fossils, therefore evolution didn't happen. This is confusing two different questions. Neuroscientist are fine with admitting that we don't know everything about how the brain works. Go to the wikipedia page for the brain and find the reference which links to the pdf file called "The new century of the brain" and see it and read it for yourself.

But all of that doesn't mean that we don't know absolutely nothing, we know quite a lot. And we know enough to have a certain high level of confidence in the claim THAT the brain causes the mind, which is independent of knowing everything about the mechanism by which it causes the mind, the causal inference itself is on a higher or different level of description then the causal explanation. These are separate questions - and you can first establish causal relationships between variables, and then start to explore everything about how these variables are connected. This in fact has happened many times in science. And this is in fact what is happening in neuroscience - the whole field and the whole research program is founded on the premise that the mind is what the brain does, and by now it has been working quite well. Not only that, but the progress itself is accelerating. If there was a major problem with the hypothesis that we are using to predict what we should find (and not only that) in our continuing exploration of the brain and mind, then how do you explain that? by now every prediction made by the materialist hypothesis has been confirmed, but there are also some predictions that have yet to be tested in the future (we don't yet have the technology). But scientists are making progress.

 

[idav]

“It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."

Just a little info, hope you don't mind. This is what D Chalmers actually had to say in HPoC, you will see it is quite different from what you imagined.

Yes, that amounts to "qualia is so mysterious". *does ghost sounds*

Yes perplexing but it does. It does in also less complex organisms with easier verifiable tracing of cause and effect. We see reaction to stimuli, we see a plant following the sun with no eyes.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not trying to 'explain anything away', all I am asking is why you would imagine that there needs to be anything more than matter and energy, when matter and energy are enough to form the entire universe and we have no evidence of any extra thingy so how could it be necessary?

The computer monitor in front of you that you see is not the computer monitor that is composed of matter and energy. The one in front of you is composed of your thoughts about the monitor, including the thoughts of the sensorium and the thought that "the monitor is composed of matter and energy."

 

[idav]

The computer monitor in front of you that you see is not the computer monitor that is composed of matter and energy. The one in front of you is composed of your thoughts about the monitor, including the thoughts of the sensorium and the thought that "the monitor is composed of matter and energy."

The evidence suggests that thoughts are some sort of byproduct of whatever is going on in that brain of ours in its various forms of matter and energy. There is still an interaction. The world producing stimulus in our brains.